ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2023
Orthodontic craniofacial pattern diagnosis: cephalometric geometry and machine learning.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning and Clustering Analysis of Class II and III Malocclusions.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Observational
- Applying Automated Artificial Intelligence Models on Lateral Cephalometric Parameters to Accurately Classify Arab Orthodontic Patient Patterns.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Machine learning algorithms for predicting quality of life improvements after digital orthodontic treatment: a retrospective analysis.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Article
- Integration of artificial intelligence in orthodontic imaging: A bibliometric analysis of research trends and applications.Imaging science in dentistry · 2025Review
- Hierarchical clustering analysis & machine learning models for diagnosing skeletal classes I and II in German patients.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Machine learning models for improving the diagnosing efficiency of skeletal class I and III in German orthodontic patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efficient and reliable diagnosis of craniofacial patterns is critical to orthodontic treatment. Although machine learning (ML) is time-saving and high-precision, prior knowledge should validate its reliability. This study proposed a craniofacial ML diagnostic workflow base on a cephalometric geometric model through clinical verification. A cephalometric geometric model was established to determine the landmark location by analyzing 408 X-ray lateral cephalograms. Through geometric information and feature engineering, nine supervised ML algorithms were conducted for sagittal and vertical skeleton patterns. After dimension reduction, plane decision boundary and landmark contribution contours were depicted to demonstrate the diagnostic consistency and the consistency with clinical norms. As a result, multi-layer perceptron achieved 97.56% accuracy for sagittal, while linear support vector machine reached 90.24% for the vertical. Sagittal diagnoses showed average superiority (91.60 ± 5.43)% over the vertical (82.25 ± 6.37)%, where discriminative algorithms exhibited more steady performance (93.20 ± 3.29)% than the generative (85.98 ± 9.48)%. Further, the Kruskal-Wallis H test was carried out to explore statistical differences in diagnoses. Though sagittal patterns had no statistical difference in diagnostic accuracy, the vertical showed significance. All aspects of the tests indicated that the proposed craniofacial ML workflow was highly consistent with clinical norms and could supplement practical diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37672141What 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.