Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39422586›Full record

Observational studyJournal of dental research2024

Publicly Available Dental Image Datasets for Artificial Intelligence.

S E Uribe, J Issa, F Sohrabniya, A Denny, N N Kim, A F Dayo, A Chaurasia, A Sofi-Mahmudi, M Büttner, F Schwendicke

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of dental research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

10 authors.

S E UribeDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Oral Health, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia.ORCID 0000-0003-0684-2025
J IssaChair of Practical Clinical Dentistry, Department of Diagnostics, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6498-7989
F SohrabniyaTopic Group Dental Diagnostic and Digital Dentistry, ITU/WHO Focus Group AI on Health, Berlin, Germany.
A DennyIndependent researcher, Ramstein, Germany.
N N KimCollege of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
A F DayoDepartment of Oral Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
A ChaurasiaDepartment of Oral Medicine & Radiology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
A Sofi-MahmudiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6829-0823
M BüttnerCharité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9004-213X
F SchwendickeClinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1223-1669

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) in dentistry requires large and well-annotated datasets. However, the availability of public dental imaging datasets remains unclear. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of all publicly available dental imaging datasets to address this gap and support AI development. This observational study searched all publicly available dataset resources (academic databases, preprints, and AI challenges), focusing on datasets/articles from 2020 to 2023, with PubMed searches extending back to 2011. We comprehensively searched for dental AI datasets containing images (intraoral photos, scans, radiographs, etc.) using relevant keywords. We included datasets of >50 images obtained from publicly available sources. We extracted dataset characteristics, patient demographics, country of origin, dataset size, ethical clearance, image details, FAIRness metrics, and metadata completeness. We screened 131,028 records and extracted 16 unique dental imaging datasets. The datasets were obtained from Kaggle (18.8%), GitHub, Google, Mendeley, PubMed, Zenodo (each 12.5%), Grand-Challenge, OSF, and arXiv (each 6.25%). The primary focus was tooth segmentation (62.5%) and labeling (56.2%). Panoramic radiography was the most common imaging modality (58.8%). Of the 13 countries, China contributed the most images (2,413). Of the datasets, 75% contained annotations, whereas the methods used to establish labels were often unclear and inconsistent. Only 31.2% of the datasets reported ethical approval, and 56.25% did not specify a license. Most data were obtained from dental clinics (50%). Intraoral radiographs had the highest findability score in the FAIR assessment, whereas cone-beam computed tomography datasets scored the lowest in all categories. These findings revealed a scarcity of publicly available imaging dental data and inconsistent metadata reporting. To promote the development of robust, equitable, and generalizable AI tools for dental diagnostics, treatment, and research, efforts are needed to address data scarcity, increase diversity, mandate metadata completeness, and ensure FAIRness in AI dental imaging research.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDatabases, FactualDatasets as TopicHumansartificial intelligencebig datadeep learning/machine learningdiagnostic imagingdigital imaging/radiologymetadatapanoramic radiography

Identifiers

PMID39422586
PMCPMC11633071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.