ArticleOral radiology2024
Deep learning classification performance for diagnosing condylar osteoarthritis in patients with dentofacial deformities using panoramic temporomandibular joint projection images.
Article in Oral radiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe present study aimed to assess the consistencies and performances of deep learning (DL) models in the diagnosis of condylar osteoarthritis (OA) among patients with dentofacial deformities using panoramic temporomandibular joint (TMJ) projection images.
methodsA total of 68 TMJs with or without condylar OA in dentofacial deformity patients were tested to verify the consistencies and performances of DL models created using 252 TMJs with or without OA in TMJ disorder and dentofacial deformity patients; these models were used to diagnose OA on conventional panoramic (Con-Pa) images and open (Open-TMJ) and closed (Closed-TMJ) mouth TMJ projection images. The GoogLeNet and VGG-16 networks were used to create the DL models. For comparison, two dental residents with < 1 year of experience interpreting radiographs evaluated the same condyle data that had been used to test the DL models.
resultsOn Open-TMJ images, the DL models showed moderate to very good consistency, whereas the residents' demonstrated fair consistency on all images. The areas under the curve (AUCs) of both DL models on Con-Pa (0.84 for GoogLeNet and 0.75 for VGG-16) and Open-TMJ images (0.89 for both models) were significantly higher than the residents' AUCs (p < 0.01). The AUCs of the DL models on Open-TMJ images (0.89 for both models) were higher than the AUCs on Closed-TMJ images (0.72 for both models).
conclusionsThe DL models created in this study could help residents to interpret Con-Pa and Open-TMJ images in the diagnosis of condylar OA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38990220What 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.