ArticleBMC oral health2024
AI-initiated second opinions: a framework for advanced caries treatment planning.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into medical and dental applications can be challenging due to clinicians' distrust of computer predictions and the potential risks associated with erroneous outputs. We introduce the idea of using AI to trigger second opinions in cases where there is a disagreement between the clinician and the algorithm. By keeping the AI prediction hidden throughout the diagnostic process, we minimize the risks associated with distrust and erroneous predictions, relying solely on human predictions. The experiment involved 3 experienced dentists, 25 dental students, and 290 patients treated for advanced caries across 6 centers. We developed an AI model to predict pulp status following advanced caries treatment. Clinicians were asked to perform the same prediction without the assistance of the AI model. The second opinion framework was tested in a 1000-trial simulation. The average F1-score of the clinicians increased significantly from 0.586 to 0.645.
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.