Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37109726›Full record

ReviewMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2023

Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Periapical Periodontitis on Two-Dimensional Radiographs: A Retrospective Study and Literature Review.

Julien Issa, Mouna Jaber, Ismail Rifai, Paul Mozdziak, Bartosz Kempisty, Marta Dyszkiewicz-Konwińska

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Julien IssaDepartment of Diagnostics, University of Medical Sciences, Bukowska 70, 60-812 Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6498-7989
Mouna JaberFaculty of Dentistry, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 60-812 Poznan, Poland.
Ismail RifaiDepartment of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Josep Trueta, s/n, 08195 Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain.
Paul MozdziakPrestage Department of Poultry Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1575-3123
Bartosz KempistyPhysiology Graduate Faculty, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
Marta Dyszkiewicz-KonwińskaDepartment of Diagnostics, University of Medical Sciences, Bukowska 70, 60-812 Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8069-9004

Funding

STER Internationalization of Doctoral Schools Program from NAWA Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange No. PPI/STE/2020/1/00014/DEC/02The National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture Animal Health NC07082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in detecting apical pathosis on periapical radiographs. A total of twenty anonymized periapical radiographs were retrieved from the database of Poznan University of Medical Sciences. These radiographs displayed a sequence of 60 visible teeth. The evaluation of the radiographs was conducted using two methods (manual and automatic), and the results obtained from each technique were afterward compared. For the ground-truth method, one oral and maxillofacial radiology expert with more than ten years of experience and one trainee in oral and maxillofacial radiology evaluated the radiographs by classifying teeth as healthy and unhealthy. A tooth was considered unhealthy when periapical periodontitis related to this tooth had been detected on the radiograph. At the same time, a tooth was classified as healthy when no periapical radiolucency was detected on the periapical radiographs. Then, the same radiographs were evaluated by artificial intelligence, Diagnocat (Diagnocat Ltd., San Francisco, CA, USA). Diagnocat (Diagnocat Ltd., San Francisco, CA, USA) correctly identified periapical lesions on periapical radiographs with a sensitivity of 92.30% and identified healthy teeth with a specificity of 97.87%. The recorded accuracy and F1 score were 96.66% and 0.92, respectively. The artificial intelligence algorithm misdiagnosed one unhealthy tooth (false negative) and over-diagnosed one healthy tooth (false positive) compared to the ground-truth results. Diagnocat (Diagnocat Ltd., San Francisco, CA, USA) showed an optimum accuracy for detecting periapical periodontitis on periapical radiographs. However, more research is needed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence-based algorithms in dentistry.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePeriapical PeriodontitisCone-Beam Computed TomographyDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansRetrospective Studiesartificial intelligence (AI)automatic detectiondiagnosisdiagnostic test accuracyperiapical periodontitistwo-dimensional radiographs

Identifiers

PMID37109726
PMCPMC10142688

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.