ArticleJournal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons2024
Machine Learning Effectively Diagnoses Mandibular Deformity Using Three-Dimensional Landmarks.
Article in Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of multivariate linear regression and random forest model in developing mandibular chin prediction reconstruction equation.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Article
- Predicting camouflage treatment outcomes in skeletal class III malocclusion using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Large Language Models Diagnose Facial Deformity.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence Used for Diagnosis in Facial Deformities: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundJaw deformity diagnosis requires objective tests. Current methods, like cephalometry, have limitations. However, recent studies have shown that machine learning can diagnose jaw deformities in two dimensions. Therefore, we hypothesized that a multilayer perceptron (MLP) could accurately diagnose jaw deformities in three dimensions (3D). PURPOSE: Examine the hypothesis by focusing on anomalous mandibular position. We aimed to: (1) create a machine learning model to diagnose mandibular retrognathism and prognathism; and (2) compare its performance with traditional cephalometric methods. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: An in-silico experiment on deidentified retrospective data. The study was conducted at the Houston Methodist Research Institute and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Included were patient records with jaw deformities and preoperative 3D facial models. Patients with significant jaw asymmetry were excluded. PREDICTOR VARIABLES: The tests used to diagnose mandibular anteroposterior position are: (1) SNB angle; (2) facial angle; (3) mandibular unit length (MdUL); and (4) MLP model. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE: The resultant diagnoses: normal, prognathic, or retrognathic. COVARIATES: None. ANALYSES: A senior surgeon labeled the patients' mandibles as prognathic, normal, or retrognathic, creating a gold standard. Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute developed an MLP model to diagnose mandibular prognathism and retrognathism using the 3D coordinates of 50 landmarks. The performance of the MLP model was compared with three traditional cephalometric measurements: (1) SNB, (2) facial angle, and (3) MdUL. The primary metric used to assess the performance was diagnostic accuracy. McNemar's exact test tested the difference between traditional cephalometric measurement and MLP. Cohen's Kappa measured inter-rater agreement between each method and the gold standard.
resultsThe sample included 101 patients. The diagnostic accuracy of SNB, facial angle, MdUL, and MLP were 74.3, 74.3, 75.3, and 85.2%, respectively. McNemar's test shows that our MLP performs significantly better than the SNB (P = .027), facial angle (P = .019), and MdUL (P = .031). The agreement between the traditional cephalometric measurements and the surgeon's diagnosis was fair. In contrast, the agreement between the MLP and the surgeon was moderate. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The performance of the MLP is significantly better than that of the traditional cephalometric measurements.
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.