ArticleOral radiology2024
Comparing the accuracy of two machine learning models in detection and classification of periapical lesions using periapical radiographs.
Article in Oral radiology, 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Detection and Ordinal Severity Grading of Periapical Lesions on Panoramic Radiographs Using a Lesion-Preserving Tiling and Ordinal-Aware YOLO Framework.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a no-code AI model for detecting periapical radiolucencies: impact of anatomical region on diagnostic performance.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Automated assessment of periapical health based on the radiographic periapical index using YOLOv8, YOLOv11, and YOLOv12 one-stage object detection algorithms.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious deep learning-based studies were mainly conducted on detecting periapical lesions; limited information in classification, such as the periapical index (PAI) scoring system, is available. The study aimed to apply two deep learning models, Faster R-CNN and YOLOv4, in detecting and classifying periapical lesions using the PAI score from periapical radiographs (PR) in three different regions of the dental arch: anterior teeth, premolars, and molars.
methodsOut of 2658 PR selected for the study, 2122 PR were used for training, 268 PR were used for validation and 268 PR were used for testing. The diagnosis made by experienced dentists was used as the reference diagnosis.
resultsThe Faster R-CNN and YOLOv4 models obtained great sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and precision for detecting periapical lesions. No clear difference in the performance of both models among these three regions was found. The true prediction of Faster R-CNN was 89%, 83.01% and 91.84% for PAI 3, PAI 4 and PAI 5 lesions, respectively. The corresponding values of YOLOv4 were 68.06%, 50.94%, and 65.31%.
conclusionsOur study demonstrated the potential of YOLOv4 and Faster R-CNN models for detecting and classifying periapical lesions based on the PAI scoring system using periapical radiographs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38862834What 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.