Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39177815›Full record

SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2025

Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence models in detecting osteoporosis using dental images: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gita Khadivi, Abtin Akhtari, Farshad Sharifi, Nicolette Zargarian, Saharnaz Esmaeili, Mitra Ghazizadeh Ahsaie, Soheil Shahbazi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

7 authors.

Gita KhadiviDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2949-0376
Abtin AkhtariSchool of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9966-1383
Farshad SharifiElderly Health Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2035-6587
Nicolette ZargarianSchool of Dentistry, Research Institute for Dental Sciences, Mkhitar Heratsi Yerevan State Medical University, Yerevan, Armenia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-4012-1789
Saharnaz EsmaeiliDentofacial Deformities Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5187-3261
Mitra Ghazizadeh AhsaieDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7028-748X
Soheil ShahbaziDental Research Center, Research Institute for Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. soheil.shahbazi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1155-7459

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current study aimed to systematically review the literature on the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) models for osteoporosis (OP) diagnosis using dental images. A thorough literature search was executed in October 2022 and updated in November 2023 across multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The research targeted studies using AI models for OP diagnosis from dental radiographs. The main outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of AI models regarding OP diagnosis. The "meta" package from the R Foundation was selected for statistical analysis. A random-effects model, along with 95% confidence intervals, was utilized to estimate pooled values. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was employed for risk of bias and applicability assessment. Among 640 records, 22 studies were included in the qualitative analysis and 12 in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity for AI-assisted OP diagnosis was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.70-0.93), while the pooled specificity equaled 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91-0.97). Conventional algorithms led to a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.57-0.94) and a pooled specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.97). Deep convolutional neural networks exhibited a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.68-0.95) and a pooled specificity of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96). This systematic review corroborates the accuracy of AI in OP diagnosis using dental images. Future research should expand sample sizes in test and training datasets and standardize imaging techniques to establish the reliability of AI-assisted methods in OP diagnosis through dental images.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceOsteoporosisSensitivity and SpecificityHumansRadiography, DentalArtificial intelligenceBone densityDeep learningOsteoporosisPanoramic radiography

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.