ArticleProgress in orthodontics2024
Classification of cervical vertebral maturation stages with machine learning models: leveraging datasets with high inter- and intra-observer agreement.
Article in Progress in orthodontics, 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 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Radiographic choice for skeletal maturation assessment: a systematic review of Cervical Vertebrae Method and Middle Phalanx Method.Oral radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence for predicting the pubertal growth spurt using cephalometric and hand-wrist radiographs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Correction to: Classification of cervical vertebral maturation stages with machine learning models: leveraging datasets with high inter- and intra-observer agreement.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Article
- Deep learning based quantitative cervical vertebral maturation analysis.Head & face medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the accuracy of machine learning (ML) models with feature selection technique in classifying cervical vertebral maturation stages (CVMS). Consensus-based datasets were used for models training and evaluation for their model generalization capabilities on unseen datasets.
methodsThree clinicians independently rated CVMS on 1380 lateral cephalograms, resulting in the creation of five datasets: two consensus-based datasets (Complete Agreement and Majority Voting), and three datasets based on a single rater's evaluations. Additionally, landmarks annotation of the second to fourth cervical vertebrae and patients' information underwent a feature selection process. These datasets were used to train various ML models and identify the top-performing model for each dataset. These models were subsequently tested on their generalization capabilities.
resultsFeatures that considered significant in the consensus-based datasets were consistent with a CVMS guideline. The Support Vector Machine model on the Complete Agreement dataset achieved the highest accuracy (77.4%), followed by the Multi-Layer Perceptron model on the Majority Voting dataset (69.6%). Models from individual ratings showed lower accuracies (60.4-67.9%). The consensus-based training models also exhibited lower coefficient of variation (CV), indicating superior generalization capability compared to models from single raters.
conclusionML models trained on consensus-based datasets for CVMS classification exhibited the highest accuracy, with significant features consistent with the original CVMS guidelines. These models also showed robust generalization capabilities, underscoring the importance of dataset quality.
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.