Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36561660›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2022

Applications of contemporary artificial intelligence technology in forensic odontology as primary forensic identifier: A scoping review.

Norhasmira Mohammad, Rohana Ahmad, Arofi Kurniawan, Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd Yusof

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
51.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Descriptive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Artificial intelligence in forensic medicine and forensic dentistry.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2023
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Dentistry.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2023
    Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Norhasmira MohammadCenter for Oral and Maxillofacial Diagnostics and Medicine Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus, Sungai Buloh, Malaysia.
Rohana AhmadCenter for Restorative Dentistry Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus, Sungai Buloh, Malaysia.
Arofi KurniawanDepartment of Forensic Odontology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.
Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd YusofCenter for Oral and Maxillofacial Diagnostics and Medicine Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus, Sungai Buloh, Malaysia.
Universiti Teknologi MARA · MYAirlangga University · ID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Forensic odontology may require a visual or clinical method during identification. Sometimes it may require forensic experts to refer to the existing technique to identify individuals, for example, by using the atlas to estimate the dental age. However, the existing technology can be a complicated procedure for a large-scale incident requiring a more significant number of forensic identifications, particularly during mass disasters. This has driven many experts to perform automation in their current practice to improve efficiency. Objective: This article aims to evaluate current artificial intelligence applications and discuss their performance concerning the algorithm architecture used in forensic odontology. Methods: This study summarizes the findings of 28 research papers published between 2010 and June 2022 using the Arksey and O'Malley framework, updated by the Joanna Briggs Institute Framework for Scoping Reviews methodology, highlighting the research trend of artificial intelligence technology in forensic odontology. In addition, a literature search was conducted on Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed, and the results were evaluated based on their content and significance. Results: The potential application of artificial intelligence technology in forensic odontology can be categorized into four: (1) human bite marks, (2) sex determination, (3) age estimation, and (4) dental comparison. This powerful tool can solve humanity's problems by giving an adequate number of datasets, the appropriate implementation of algorithm architecture, and the proper assignment of hyperparameters that enable the model to perform the prediction at a very high level of performance. Conclusion: The reviewed articles demonstrate that machine learning techniques are reliable for studies involving continuous features such as morphometric parameters. However, machine learning models do not strictly require large training datasets to produce promising results. In contrast, deep learning enables the processing of unstructured data, such as medical images, which require large volumes of data. Occasionally, transfer learning was used to overcome the limitation of data. In the meantime, this method's capacity to automatically learn task-specific feature representations has made it a significant success in forensic odontology.

Indexed as

artificial neural network (ANN)deep learningdental age estimation (DAE)forensic odontologyhuman identificationmachine learning (ML)

Identifiers

PMID36561660
PMCPMC9763471
OpenAlexW4310866528

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.