ArticleCureus2023
Clinical Annotation and Segmentation Tool (CAST) Implementation for Dental Diagnostics.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Understanding Occlusion and Temporomandibular Joint Function Using Deep Learning and Predictive Modeling.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to document the early stages of development of an unsupervised, deep learning-based clinical annotation and segmentation tool (CAST) capable of isolating clinically significant teeth in both intraoral photographs and their corresponding oral radiographs. Methods The dataset consisted of 172 intraoral photographs and 424 dental radiographs, manually annotated by two operators, augmented to yield 6258 images for training, 183 for validation, and 98 for testing. The training involved the use of an object detection model ('YOLOv8') combined with a feature extraction system ('Segment Anything Model'). This combination enabled the auto-annotation and segmentation of tooth-related features and lesions in both types of images without operator intervention. Outputs were further processed using a data relabelling tool ('X-AnyLabeling') enabling the option to manually reannotate erroneous data outputs through reinforcement learning. Results The trained object detection model achieved a mean average precision (mAP) of 77.4%, with precision and recall rates of 75.0% and 72.1%, respectively. The model was able to segment features from oral images annotated by polygonal boundaries better than radiological images annotated using bounding boxes. Conclusion The development of the auto-annotation and segmentation tool showed initial promise in automating the image labelling and segmentation process for intraoral images and radiographs. Further work is required to address the limitations.
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.