Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38764408›Full record

ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2024

Evaluation of different machine learning algorithms for extraction decision in orthodontic treatment.

Begüm Köktürk, Hande Pamukçu, Ömer Gözüaçık

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Begüm KöktürkDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey.
Hande PamukçuDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4242-5114
Ömer GözüaçıkIndependent Researcher, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

Baskent Üniversitesi
6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningTooth ExtractionAdolescentAlgorithmsCephalometryClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHumansMaleOrthodontics, CorrectiveROC Curveensemble modelsextraction decisionmachine learningtreatment plan

Identifiers

PMID38764408
PMCPMC11654355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.