ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2024
Evaluation of different machine learning algorithms for extraction decision in orthodontic treatment.
Article in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Diagnostic Performance of ChatGPT-5.0 versus Machine Learning in Orthodontics: A Comparative Analysis for Extraction Treatment Planning.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Prediction of Orthodontic Extraction Decisions Using Machine Learning Algorithms: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Development and External Validation of an Explainable AHP-ML Model for Orthodontic Tooth Extraction and Anchorage Decision Support.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Novel Multimodal Deep Image Analysis Model for Predicting Extraction/Non-Extraction Decision.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- Rigorous validation of machine learning models for orthodontic extraction prediction using nested cross-validation and smotenc-integrated pipelines.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Artificial neural network in orthodontic therapeutic extractions.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- The Transformative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Comprehensive Overview. Part 1: Fundamentals of AI, and its Contemporary Applications in Dentistry.International dental journal · 2025Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in determining extraction protocol in orthodontic patients: A systematic review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2025Review
- Evaluation of different machine learning algorithms for extraction decision in orthodontic treatment.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2024Article
- Evaluation of four machine learning methods in predicting orthodontic extraction decision from clinical examination data and analysis of feature contribution.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe extraction decision significantly affects the treatment process and outcome. Therefore, it is crucial to make this decision with a more objective and standardized method. The objectives of this study were (1) to identify the best-performing model among seven machine learning (ML) models, which will standardize the extraction decision and serve as a guide for inexperienced clinicians, and (2) to determine the important variables for the extraction decision.
methodsThis study included 1000 patients who received orthodontic treatment with or without extraction (500 extraction and 500 non-extraction). The success criteria of the study were the decisions made by the four experienced orthodontists. Seven ML models were trained using 36 variables; including demographic information, cephalometric and model measurements. First, the extraction decision was performed, and then the extraction type was identified. Accuracy and area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve were used to measure the success of ML models.
resultsThe Stacking Classifier model, which consists of Gradient Boosted Trees, Support Vector Machine, and Random Forest models, showed the highest performance in extraction decision with 91.2% AUC. The most important features determining extraction decision were maxillary and mandibular arch length discrepancy, Wits Appraisal, and ANS-Me length. Likewise, the Stacking Classifier showed the highest performance with 76.3% accuracy in extraction type decisions. The most important variables for the extraction type decision were mandibular arch length discrepancy, Class I molar relationship, cephalometric overbite, Wits Appraisal, and L1-NB distance.
conclusionThe Stacking Classifier model exhibited the best performance for the extraction decision. While ML models showed a high performance in extraction decision, they could not able to achieve the same level of performance in extraction type decision.
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.