Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36769585›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Machine Learning in Dentistry: A Scoping Review.

Lubaina T Arsiwala-Scheppach, Akhilanand Chaurasia, Anne Müller, Joachim Krois, Falk Schwendicke

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  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

5 authors.

Lubaina T Arsiwala-ScheppachDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 14197 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1428-6543
Akhilanand ChaurasiaITU/WHO Focus Group AI on Health, Topic Group Dental Diagnostics and Digital Dentistry, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8356-9512
Anne MüllerPharmacovigilance Institute (Pharmakovigilanz- und Beratungszentrum, PVZ) for Embryotoxicology, Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 13353 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6256-8860
Joachim KroisDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 14197 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6010-8940
Falk SchwendickeDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 14197 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1223-1669

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) is being increasingly employed in dental research and application. We aimed to systematically compile studies using ML in dentistry and assess their methodological quality, including the risk of bias and reporting standards. We evaluated studies employing ML in dentistry published from 1 January 2015 to 31 May 2021 on MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, and arXiv. We assessed publication trends and the distribution of ML tasks (classification, object detection, semantic segmentation, instance segmentation, and generation) in different clinical fields. We appraised the risk of bias and adherence to reporting standards, using the QUADAS-2 and TRIPOD checklists, respectively. Out of 183 identified studies, 168 were included, focusing on various ML tasks and employing a broad range of ML models, input data, data sources, strategies to generate reference tests, and performance metrics. Classification tasks were most common. Forty-two different metrics were used to evaluate model performances, with accuracy, sensitivity, precision, and intersection-over-union being the most common. We observed considerable risk of bias and moderate adherence to reporting standards which hampers replication of results. A minimum (core) set of outcome and outcome metrics is necessary to facilitate comparisons across studies.

Indexed as

dental radiographydentistrymachine learningneural networksscoping review

Identifiers

PMID36769585
PMCPMC9918184

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.