ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022
Machine Learning in Predicting Tooth Loss: A Systematic Review and Risk of Bias Assessment.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Relevance of Prognosis Tools in Periodontitis: A Systematic Review.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Radiographic diagnosis of periodontitis using artificial intelligence: a meta-analysis comparing binary and staging classifications across imaging modalities.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Precision periodontology in clinical practice: bridging omics and clinical decision-making.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Review
- Leveraging Machine Learning for Pediatric Appendicitis Diagnosis: A Retrospective Study Integrating Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Data.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Applied artificial intelligence in dentistry: emerging data modalities and modeling approaches.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Review
- A proposed tree-based explainable artificial intelligence approach for the prediction of angina pectoris.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the predictors of tooth loss using artificial intelligence-based machine learning approach: A retrospective study.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Predicting tooth loss is a persistent clinical challenge in the 21st century. While an emerging field in dentistry, computational solutions that employ machine learning are promising for enhancing clinical outcomes, including the chairside prognostication of tooth loss. We aimed to evaluate the risk of bias in prognostic prediction models of tooth loss that use machine learning. To do this, literature was searched in two electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed; Google Scholar) for studies that reported the accuracy or area under the curve (AUC) of prediction models. AUC measures the entire two-dimensional area underneath the entire receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. AUC provides an aggregate measure of performance across all possible classification thresholds. Although both development and validation were included in this review, studies that did not assess the accuracy or validation of boosting models (AdaBoosting, Gradient-boosting decision tree, XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost) were excluded. Five studies met criteria for inclusion and revealed high accuracy; however, models displayed a high risk of bias. Importantly, patient-level assessments combined with socioeconomic predictors performed better than clinical predictors alone. While there are current limitations, machine-learning-assisted models for tooth loss may enhance prognostication accuracy in combination with clinical and patient metadata in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.