Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39948515›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2025

Machine learning models for prognosis prediction in regenerative endodontic procedures.

Jing Lu, Qianqian Cai, Kaizhi Chen, Bill Kahler, Jun Yao, Yanjun Zhang, Dali Zheng, Youguang Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

8 authors.

Jing Lu *Fujian Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Qianqian Cai *College of Computer and Data Science, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China.
Kaizhi ChenCollege of Computer and Data Science, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China.
Bill KahlerSchool of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Jun YaoFujian Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Yanjun ZhangFujian Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Dali ZhengFujian Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Youguang LuFujian Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China. fjlyg63@fjmu.edu.cn.

Funding

Fujian Provincial Department of Finance 2021CZ01Fujian Provincial Health Technology Project 2024GGA073Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province 2024J01651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to establish and validate machine learning (ML) models to predict the prognosis of regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) clinically, assisting clinicians in decision-making and avoiding treatment failure.

methodsA total of 198 patients with 268 teeth were included for radiographic examination and measurement. Five Machine Learning (ML) models, including Random forest (RF), gradient boosting machine (GBM), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), Logistic regression (logR) and support vector machine (SVM) are implemented for the prediction on two datasets of follow-up periods of 1-year and 2-year, respectively. Using a stratified five folds of cross-validation method, each dataset is randomly divided into a training set and test set in a ratio of 8 : 2. Correlation analysis and importance ranking were performed for feature extraction. Seven performance metrics including area under curve (AUC), accuracy, F1-score, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated to compare the predictive performance.

resultsThe RF (Accuracy = 0.91, AUC = 0.94; Accuracy = 0.84, AUC = 0.86) and GBM (Accuracy = 0.91, AUC = 0.93; Accuracy = 0.84, AUC = 0.85) had the best and similar performance simultaneously in the prediction of 1-year follow-up period and 2-year follow-up period, respectively. The variables applied to predict the primary outcome in REPs were ranked accordingly to their values of feature importance, including age, sex, etiology, the number of root canals, trauma type, swelling or sinus tract, periapical lesion size, root development stage, pre-operative root resorption, medicaments, scaffold, second REPs, previous root canal filling.

conclusionsRF and GBM models outperformed XGB, logR, SVM models on the overall performance on our datasets, exhibiting the potential capability to predict the prognosis of REPs. The ranking of feature importance contributes to establishing the scoring system for prognosis prediction in REPs, assisting clinicians in decision-making.

Indexed as

Machine LearningRegenerative EndodonticsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisYoung AdultMachine learningPrognosis predictionRegenerative endodontic procedures

Identifiers

PMID39948515
PMCPMC11827326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.