ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
Evaluation of an Automatic Cephalometric Superimposition Method Based on Feature Matching.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The objective of the study is to establish a novel method for automatic cephalometric superimposition on the basis of feature matching and compare it with the commonly used Sella-Nasion (SN) superimposition method. A total of 178 pairs of pre- (T1) and post-treatment (T2) lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCRs) from adult orthodontic patients were collected. Ninety LCR pairs were used to train the you only look once version 8 (YOLOv8) model to automatically recognize stable cranial reference areas. This approach represents a novel method for automated superimposition on the basis of feature matching. The remaining 88 LCR pairs were used for landmark identification by three orthodontic experts to evaluate the accuracy of the two superimposition methods. The Euclidean distances of 17 hard tissue landmarks were measured and statistically compared after superimposition. Significant differences were observed in the superimposition error of most landmarks between the two methods (p < 0.05). The successful detection rate (SDR) of automatic superimposition of each landmark within the precision ranges of 1 mm, 2 mm, and 3 mm via the new method was higher than that via the SN method. The new automatic superimposition method is more accurate than the SN method and is a reliable method for superimposing adult LCRs, thus providing support for clinical or research work.
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.