Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36669652›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2023

Artificial Intelligence-Based Diagnosis of Oral Lichen Planus Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks.

Paniti Achararit, Chawan Manaspon, Chavin Jongwannasiri, Ekarat Phattarataratip, Thanaphum Osathanon, Kraisorn Sappayatosok

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Paniti AchararitPrincess Srisavangavadhana College of Medicine, Chulabhorn Royal Academy, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-2753-7580
Chawan ManasponBiomedical Engineering Institute, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-8961-7901
Chavin JongwannasiriPrincess Srisavangavadhana College of Medicine, Chulabhorn Royal Academy, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ekarat PhattarataratipDepartment of Oral Pathology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-5940-7935
Thanaphum OsathanonDental Stem Cell Biology Research Unit, Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-1649-6357
Kraisorn SappayatosokCollege of Dental Medicine, Rangsit University, PathumThani, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-1467-8974

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to employ artificial intelligence (AI) via convolutional neural network (CNN) for the separation of oral lichen planus (OLP) and non-OLP in biopsy-proven clinical cases of OLP and non-OLP. MATERIALS AND

methodsData comprised of clinical photographs of 609 OLP and 480 non-OLP which diagnosis has been confirmed histopathologically. Fifty-five photographs from the OLP and non-OLP groups were randomly selected for use as the test dataset, while the remaining were used as training and validation datasets. Data augmentation was performed on the training dataset to increase the number and variation of photographs. Performance metrics for the CNN model performance included accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score. Gradient-weighted class activation mapping was also used to visualize the important regions associated with discriminative clinical features on which the model relies.

resultsAll the selected CNN models were able to diagnose OLP and non-OLP lesions using photographs. The performance of the Xception model was significantly higher than that of the other models in terms of overall accuracy and F1-score.

conclusionsOur demonstration shows that CNN models can achieve an accuracy of 82 to 88%. Xception model performed the best in terms of both accuracy and F1-score.

Identifiers

PMID36669652
PMCPMC10756816

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.