ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2023
Human examination and artificial intelligence in cephalometric landmark detection-is AI ready to take over?
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Methods in Cephalometric Image Analysis-A Systematic Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Applications of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontics: a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
- Evaluating the precision and reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks in locally reconstructed lateral cephalometric radiographs from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Reliability and accuracy of Artificial intelligence-based software for cephalometric diagnosis. A diagnostic study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Comparison of AI-assisted cephalometric analysis and orthodontist-performed digital tracing analysis.Progress in orthodontics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the precision of two cephalometric landmark identification methods, namely a computer-assisted human examination software and an artificial intelligence program, based on South African data.
methodsThis retrospective quantitative cross-sectional analytical study utilized a data set consisting of 409 cephalograms obtained from a South African population. 19 landmarks were identified in each of the 409 cephalograms by the primary researcher using the two programs [(409 cephalograms x 19 landmarks) x 2 methods = 15,542 landmarks)]. Each landmark generated two coordinate values (
resultsThe primary researcher acted as the gold-standard and was calibrated prior to data collection. The inter- and intrareliability tests yielded acceptable results. Variations were present in several landmarks between the two approaches; however, they were statistically insignificant. The computer-assisted examination software was very sensitive to several variables. Several incidental findings were also discovered. Attempts were made to draw valid comparisons and conclusions.
conclusionsThere was no significant difference between the two programs regarding the precision of landmark detection. The present study provides a basis to: (1) support the use of automatic landmark detection to be within the range of computer-assisted examination software and (2) determine the learning data required to develop AI systems within an African context.
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.