ArticleScientific reports2023
Reproducibility analysis of automated deep learning based localisation of mandibular canals on a temporal CBCT dataset.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence-based segmentation of mandibular canal on cone-beam computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Oral radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Interactive AI annotation of medical images in a virtual reality environment.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preoperative radiological identification of mandibular canals is essential for maxillofacial surgery. This study demonstrates the reproducibility of a deep learning system (DLS) by evaluating its localisation performance on 165 heterogeneous cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans from 72 patients in comparison to an experienced radiologist's annotations. We evaluated the performance of the DLS using the symmetric mean curve distance (SMCD), the average symmetric surface distance (ASSD), and the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). The reproducibility of the SMCD was assessed using the within-subject coefficient of repeatability (RC). Three other experts rated the diagnostic validity twice using a 0-4 Likert scale. The reproducibility of the Likert scoring was assessed using the repeatability measure (RM). The RC of SMCD was 0.969 mm, the median (interquartile range) SMCD and ASSD were 0.643 (0.186) mm and 0.351 (0.135) mm, respectively, and the mean (standard deviation) DSC was 0.548 (0.138). The DLS performance was most affected by postoperative changes. The RM of the Likert scoring was 0.923 for the radiologist and 0.877 for the DLS. The mean (standard deviation) Likert score was 3.94 (0.27) for the radiologist and 3.84 (0.65) for the DLS. The DLS demonstrated proficient qualitative and quantitative reproducibility, temporal generalisability, and clinical validity.
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.