Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36069934›Full record

SynthesisThe Angle orthodontist2022

Neural networks for classification of cervical vertebrae maturation: a systematic review.

Reji Mathew, Stephen Palatinus, Soumya Padala, Abdulrahman Alshehri, Wael Awadh, Shilpa Bhandi, Jacob Thomas, Shankargouda Patil

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Angle orthodontist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Reji Mathew
Stephen Palatinus
Soumya Padala
Abdulrahman Alshehri
Wael Awadh
Shilpa Bhandi
Jacob Thomas
Shankargouda Patil

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the accuracy of identification and/or classification of the stage of cervical vertebrae maturity on lateral cephalograms by neural networks as compared with the ground truth determined by human observers. MATERIALS AND

methodsSearch results from four electronic databases (PubMed [MEDLINE], Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) were screened by two independent reviewers, and potentially relevant articles were chosen for full-text evaluation. Articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected for data extraction and methodologic assessment by the QUADAS-2 tool.

resultsThe search identified 425 articles across the databases, from which 8 were selected for inclusion. Most publications concerned the development of the models with different input features. Performance of the systems was evaluated against the classifications performed by human observers. The accuracy of the models on the test data ranged from 50% to more than 90%. There were concerns in all studies regarding the risk of bias in the index test and the reference standards. Studies that compared models with other algorithms in machine learning showed better results using neural networks.

conclusionsNeural networks can detect and classify cervical vertebrae maturation stages on lateral cephalograms. However, further studies need to develop robust models using appropriate reference standards that can be generalized to external data.

Indexed as

Cervical VertebraeNeural Networks, ComputerAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningRadiographyArtificial intelligenceCervical vertebrae maturationMachine learningNeural networksSkeletal maturity

Identifiers

PMID36069934
PMCPMC9598845

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.