Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39469520›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024

Evaluation of four machine learning methods in predicting orthodontic extraction decision from clinical examination data and analysis of feature contribution.

Jialiang Huang, Ian-Tong Chan, Zhixian Wang, Xiaoyi Ding, Ying Jin, Congchong Yang, Yichen Pan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Jialiang HuangDepartment of Orthodontics, Shanghai Stomatological Hospital and School of Stomatology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ian-Tong ChanSchool of Stomatology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Zhixian WangSchool of Medical Technology, Shanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Xiaoyi DingSchool of Medical Technology, Shanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Ying JinSchool of Medical Technology, Shanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Congchong YangDepartment of Cariology and Endodontology, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yichen PanNational Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, National Center for Stomatology, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The study aims to predict tooth extraction decision based on four machine learning methods and analyze the feature contribution, so as to shed light on the important basis for experts of tooth extraction planning, providing reference for orthodontic treatment planning. Methods: This study collected clinical information of 192 patients with malocclusion diagnosis and treatment plans. This study used four machine learning strategies, including decision tree, random forest, support vector machine (SVM) and multilayer perceptron (MLP) to predict orthodontic extraction decisions on clinical examination data acquired during initial consultant containing Angle classification, skeletal classification, maxillary and mandibular crowding, overjet, overbite, upper and lower incisor inclination, vertical growth pattern, lateral facial profile. Among them, 30% of the samples were randomly selected as testing sets. We used five-fold cross-validation to evaluate the generalization performance of the model and avoid over-fitting. The accuracy of the four models was calculated for the training set and cross-validation set. The confusion matrix was plotted for the testing set, and 6 indicators were calculated to evaluate the performance of the model. For the decision tree and random forest models, we observed the feature contribution. Results: The accuracy of the four models in the training set ranges from 82% to 90%, and in the cross-validation set, the decision tree and random forest had higher accuracy. In the confusion matrix analysis, decision tree tops the four models with highest accuracy, specificity, precision and F1-score and the other three models tended to classify too many samples as extraction cases. In the feature contribution analysis, crowding, lateral facial profile, and lower incisor inclination ranked at the top in the decision tree model. Conclusion: Among the machine learning models that only use clinical data for tooth extraction prediction, decision tree has the best overall performance. For tooth extraction decisions, specifically, crowding, lateral facial profile, and lower incisor inclination have the greatest contribution.

Indexed as

cross validationdecision treemachine learningorthodontic treatmenttooth extraction decision

Identifiers

PMID39469520
PMCPMC11513347

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.