Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38252312›Full record

ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2024

Determination of growth and developmental stages in hand-wrist radiographs : Can fractal analysis in combination with artificial intelligence be used?

Merve Gonca, Mehmet Fatih Sert, Dilara Nil Gunacar, Taha Emre Kose, Busra Beser

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Merve GoncaFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Menderes Boulevard No 612, 53020, Rize, Turkey. mervegonca@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1299-9088
Mehmet Fatih SertDepartment of Business Administration (Quantitative Methods), Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6356-9240
Dilara Nil GunacarFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9607-6362
Taha Emre KoseFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3601-0393
Busra BeserFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Menderes Boulevard No 612, 53020, Rize, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7280-0168
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University · TRGaziantep University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe goal of this work was to assess the classification of maturation stage using artificial intelligence (AI) classifiers.

methodsHand-wrist radiographs (HWRs) from 1067 individuals aged between 7 and 18 years were included. Fifteen regions of interest were selected for fractal dimension (FD) analysis. Five predictive models with different inputs were created (model 1: only FD; model 2: FD and Chapman sesamoid stage; model 3: FD, age, and sex; model 4: FD, Chapman sesamoid stage, age, and sex; model 5: Chapman sesamoid stage, age, and sex). The target diagnoses were accelerating growth velocity, very high growth velocity, and decreasing growth velocity. Four AI algorithms were applied: multilayer perceptron (MLP), support vector machine (SVM), gradient boosting machine (GBM) and C 5.0 decision tree classifier.

resultsAll AI algorithms except for C 5.0 yielded similar overall predictive accuracies for the five models. In order from lowest to highest, the predictive accuracies of the models were as follows: model 1 < model 3 < model 2 < model 5 < model 4. The highest overall F1 score, which was used instead of accuracy especially for models with unbalanced data, was obtained for models 1, 2, and 3 based on SVM, for model 4 based on MLP, and for model 5 based on C 5.0. Adding Chapman sesamoid stage, chronologic age, and sex as additional inputs to the FD values significantly increased the F1 score.

conclusionApplying FD analysis to HWRs is not sufficient to predict maturation stage in growing patients but can be considered a growth rate prediction method if combined with the Chapman sesamoid stage, age, and sex.

Indexed as

Age Determination by SkeletonArtificial IntelligenceFractalsAdolescentAlgorithmsChildFemaleHandHumansMaleRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityArtificial intelligenceFractal analysisMachine algorithmsMachine learningOrthodontics

Identifiers

PMID38252312
OpenAlexW4391102546

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.