ArticleDento maxillo facial radiology2025
Preparing for downstream tasks in artificial intelligence for dental radiology: a baseline performance comparison of deep learning models.
Article in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Transformer-based models in dentistry: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating vision transformers and convolutional neural networks in the context of dental image processing: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Recent advances in applications of artificial intelligence-assisted Raman spectroscopy in diagnosis of cancers.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the performance of the convolutional neural network (CNN) with the vision transformer (ViT), and the gated multilayer perceptron (gMLP) in the classification of radiographic images of dental structures.
methodsRetrospectively collected two-dimensional images derived from cone beam computed tomographic volumes were used to train CNN, ViT, and gMLP architectures as classifiers for four different cases. Cases selected for training the architectures were the classification of the radiographic appearance of maxillary sinuses, maxillary and mandibular incisors, the presence or absence of the mental foramen, and the positional relationship of the mandibular third molar to the inferior alveolar nerve canal. The performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy, and f1-score) and area under the curve (AUC)-receiver operating characteristic and precision-recall curves were calculated.
resultsThe ViT with an accuracy of 0.74-0.98, performed on par with the CNN model (accuracy 0.71-0.99) in all tasks. The gMLP displayed marginally lower performance (accuracy 0.65-0.98) as compared to the CNN and ViT. For certain tasks, the ViT outperformed the CNN. The AUCs ranged from 0.77 to 1.00 (CNN), 0.80 to 1.00 (ViT), and 0.73 to 1.00 (gMLP) for all of the four cases.
conclusionsThe ViT and gMLP exhibited comparable performance with the CNN (the current state-of-the-art). However, for certain tasks, there was a significant difference in the performance of the ViT and gMLP when compared to the CNN. This difference in model performance for various tasks proves that the capabilities of different architectures may be leveraged.
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.