ArticleBMC oral health2025
Machine learning models for prognosis prediction in regenerative endodontic procedures.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting outcomes of nonsurgical retreatment with artificial intelligence: A multicenter retrospective study using logistic regression, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Review
- Mapping the Ischemic Continuum: Dynamic Multi-Omic Biomarker and AI for Personalized Stroke Care.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Comparing diagnostic skills in endodontic cases: dental students versus ChatGPT-4o.BMC oral health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.