ArticleBMC medical imaging2024
Does the FARNet neural network algorithm accurately identify Posteroanterior cephalometric landmarks?
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Applications of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontics: a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
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
backgroundWe explored whether the feature aggregation and refinement network (FARNet) algorithm accurately identified posteroanterior (PA) cephalometric landmarks.
methodsWe identified 47 landmarks on 1,431 PA cephalograms of which 1,177 were used for training, 117 for validation, and 137 for testing. A FARNet-based artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm automatically detected the landmarks. Model effectiveness was calculated by deriving the mean radial error (MRE) and the successful detection rates (SDRs) within 2, 2.5, 3, and 4 mm. The Mann-Whitney U test was performed on the Euclidean differences between repeated manual identifications and AI trials. The direction in differences was analyzed, and whether differences moved in the same or opposite directions relative to ground truth on both the x and y-axis.
resultsThe AI system (web-based CranioCatch annotation software (Eskişehir, Turkey)) identified 47 anatomical landmarks in PA cephalograms. The right gonion SDRs were the highest, thus 96.4, 97.8, 100, and 100% within 2, 2.5, 3, and 4 mm, respectively. The right gonion MRE was 0.94 ± 0.53 mm. The right condylon SDRs were the lowest, thus 32.8, 45.3, 54.0, and 67.9% within the same thresholds. The right condylon MRE was 3.31 ± 2.25 mm. The AI model's reliability and accuracy were similar to a human expert's. AI was better at four skeleton points than the expert, whereas the expert was better at one skeletal and seven dental points (P < 0.05). Most of the points exhibited significant deviations along the y-axis. Compared to ground truth, most of the points in AI and the second trial showed opposite movement on the x-axis and the same on the y-axis.
conclusionsThe FARNet algorithm streamlined orthodontic diagnosis.
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.