SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Performance of artificial intelligence on cervical vertebral maturation assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 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
- Diagnostic Accuracy of a Machine Learning Model for Cervical Vertebra-Based Skeletal Maturity Assessment in Pediatric and Adolescent Patients Using Cephalometric Radiographs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Single-model deep learning approach for simultaneous cervical vertebral maturation staging and skeletal jaw relationship on lateral cephalograms using YOLOv8 and CNN.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Review
- Deep learning approaches for quantitative and qualitative assessment of cervical vertebral maturation staging systems.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) methods, including machine learning and deep learning, are increasingly applied in orthodontics for tasks like assessing skeletal maturity. Accurate timing of treatment is crucial, but traditional methods such as cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) staging have limitations due to observer variability and complexity. AI has the potential to automate CVM assessment, enhancing reliability and user-friendliness. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the overall performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models in assessing cervical vertebrae maturation (CVM) in radiographs, when compared to clinicians.
methodsElectronic databases of Medline (via PubMed), Google Scholar, Scopus, Embase, IEEE ArXiv and MedRxiv were searched for publications after 2010, without any limitation on language. In the present review, we included studies that reported AI models' performance on CVM assessment. Quality assessment was done using Quality assessment and diagnostic accuracy Tool-2 (QUADAS-2). Quantitative analysis was conducted using hierarchical logistic regression for meta-analysis on diagnostic accuracy. Subgroup analysis was conducted on different AI subsets (Deep learning, and Machine learning).
resultsA total of 1606 studies were screened of which 25 studies were included. The performance of the models was acceptable. However, it varied based on the methods employed. Eight studies had a low risk of bias in all domains. Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis and their pooled values for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated for each cervical stage (CS). The most accurate CVM evaluation was observed for CS1, boasting a sensitivity of 0.87, a specificity of 0.97, and a DOR of 213. Conversely, CS3 exhibited the lowest performance with a sensitivity of 0.64, and a specificity of 0.96, yet maintaining a DOR of 32.
conclusionAI has demonstrated encouraging outcomes in CVM assessment, achieving notable accuracy.
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.