Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38214940›Full record

ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2024

Comparison of deep learning methods for the radiographic detection of patients with different periodontitis stages.

Berceste Guler Ayyildiz, Rukiye Karakis, Busra Terzioglu, Durmus Ozdemir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Berceste Guler AyyildizFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Kutahya Health Sciences University, Kutahya, 43100, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-2440-6884
Rukiye KarakisFaculty of Technology, Department of Software Engineering, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, 58140, Turkey.
Busra TerziogluFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Kutahya Health Sciences University, Kutahya, 43100, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-8534-6718
Durmus OzdemirFaculty of Engineering, Department of Computer Engineering, Kutahya Dumlupinar University, Kutahya, 43020, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study is to assess the accuracy of computer-assisted periodontal classification bone loss staging using deep learning (DL) methods on panoramic radiographs and to compare the performance of various models and layers.

methodsPanoramic radiographs were diagnosed and classified into 3 groups, namely "healthy," "Stage1/2," and "Stage3/4," and stored in separate folders. The feature extraction stage involved transferring and retraining the feature extraction layers and weights from 3 models, namely ResNet50, DenseNet121, and InceptionV3, which were proposed for classifying the ImageNet dataset, to 3 DL models designed for classifying periodontal bone loss. The features obtained from global average pooling (GAP), global max pooling (GMP), or flatten layers (FL) of convolutional neural network (CNN) models were used as input to the 8 different machine learning (ML) models. In addition, the features obtained from the GAP, GMP, or FL of the DL models were reduced using the minimum redundancy maximum relevance (mRMR) method and then classified again with 8 ML models.

resultsA total of 2533 panoramic radiographs, including 721 in the healthy group, 842 in the Stage1/2 group, and 970 in the Stage3/4 group, were included in the dataset. The average performance values of DenseNet121 + GAP-based and DenseNet121 + GAP + mRMR-based ML techniques on 10 subdatasets and ML models developed using 2 feature selection techniques outperformed CNN models.

conclusionsThe new DenseNet121 + GAP + mRMR-based support vector machine model developed in this study achieved higher performance in periodontal bone loss classification compared to other models in the literature by detecting effective features from raw images without the need for manual selection.

Indexed as

Alveolar Bone LossDeep LearningHumansNeural Networks, ComputerRadiography, Panoramicalveolar bone lossclassificationdeep learningmachine learningradiography

Identifiers

PMID38214940
PMCPMC11003609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.