Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35996332›Full record

ArticleJournal of dental research2022

Artificial Intelligence for Caries Detection: Value of Data and Information.

F Schwendicke, J Cejudo Grano de Oro, A Garcia Cantu, H Meyer-Lueckel, A Chaurasia, J Krois

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dental research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Descriptive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

F SchwendickeDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1223-1669
J Cejudo Grano de OroDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
A Garcia CantuDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
H Meyer-LueckelDepartment of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, zmk bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
A ChaurasiaDepartment of Oral Medicine and Radiology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.
J KroisDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6010-8940

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

If increasing practitioners' diagnostic accuracy, medical artificial intelligence (AI) may lead to better treatment decisions at lower costs, while uncertainty remains around the resulting cost-effectiveness. In the present study, we assessed how enlarging the data set used for training an AI for caries detection on bitewings affects cost-effectiveness and also determined the value of information by reducing the uncertainty around other input parameters (namely, the costs of AI and the population's caries risk profile). We employed a convolutional neural network and trained it on 10%, 25%, 50%, or 100% of a labeled data set containing 29,011 teeth without and 19,760 teeth with caries lesions stemming from bitewing radiographs. We employed an established health economic modeling and analytical framework to quantify cost-effectiveness and value of information. We adopted a mixed public-private payer perspective in German health care; the health outcome was tooth retention years. A Markov model, allowing to follow posterior teeth over the lifetime of an initially 12-y-old individual, and Monte Carlo microsimulations were employed. With an increasing amount of data used to train the AI sensitivity and specificity increased nonlinearly, increasing the data set from 10% to 25% had the largest impact on accuracy and, consequently, cost-effectiveness. In the base-case scenario, AI was more effective (tooth retention for a mean [2.5%-97.5%] 62.8 [59.2-65.5] y) and less costly (378 [284-499] euros) than dentists without AI (60.4 [55.8-64.4] y; 419 [270-593] euros), with considerable uncertainty. The economic value of reducing the uncertainty around AI's accuracy or costs was limited, while information on the population's risk profile was more relevant. When developing dental AI, informed choices about the data set size may be recommended, and research toward individualized application of AI for caries detection seems warranted to optimize cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

Dental CariesDental Caries SusceptibilityArtificial IntelligenceCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMonte Carlo MethodAIcaries detection/diagnosis/preventioncomputer simulationdental informaticseconomic evaluationradiology

Identifiers

PMID35996332
PMCPMC9516598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.