ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
How successful is the CatBoost classifier in diagnosing different dental anomalies in patients via sella turcica and vertebral morphologic alteration?
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lectin Microarray-based Glycomics and Machine Learning Identify Shared Osteoarthritis Biomarkers in Humans, Dogs, and Horses.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate how successfully the classification of patients with and without dental anomalies was achieved through four experiments involving different dental anomalies.
methodsLateral cephalometric radiographs (LCRs) from 526 individuals aged between 14 and 22 years were included. Four experiments involving different dental anomalies were created. Experiment 1 included the total dental anomaly group and control group (CG). Experiment 2 only had dental agenesis and a CG. Experiment 3 consisted of only palatally impacted canines and the CG. Experiment 4 comprised patients with various dental defects (transposition, hypodontia, agenesis-palatally affected canine, peg-shaped laterally, hyperdontia) and the CG. Twelve sella measurements and assessments of the ponticulus posticus and posterior arch deficiency were given as input. The target was to distinguish between anomalies and controls. The CatBoost algorithm was applied to classify patients with and without dental anomalies.
resultsIn order from lowest to highest, the predictive accuracies of the experiments were as follows: experiment 4 < experiment 2 < experiment 3 < experiment 1. The sella area (SA) (mm2) was the most important variable in experiment 1. The most significant variable in prediction model of experiment 2 was sella height posterior (SHP) (mm). Sella area (SA) (mm2) was again the most relevant variable in experiment 3. The most important variable in experiment 4 was sella height median (SHM) (mm).
conclusionsEvery prediction model from the four experiments prioritized different variables. These findings may suggest that related research should focus on specific traits from a diagnostic perspective.
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.