ReviewHealth science reports2025
Artificial Intelligence Models Accuracy for Odontogenic Keratocyst Detection From Panoramic View Radiographs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 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.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Models for Detecting Odontogenic Keratocytes on CBCT Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Detection of Jaw Lesions on Panoramic Radiographs Using Deep Learning Method.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- AI-Powered Microscopic Diagnostic Techniques forJournal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 2026Article
- Deep learning for imaging diagnosis of jaw cystic lesions and maxillofacial tumors: A narrative review.The Journal of international medical research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Odontogenic keratocyst (OKC) is a radiolucent jaw lesion often mistaken for similar conditions like ameloblastomas on panoramic radiographs. Accurate diagnosis is vital for effective management, but manual image interpretation can be inconsistent. While deep learning algorithms in AI have shown promise in improving diagnostic accuracy for OKCs, their performance across studies is still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AI models in detecting OKC from panoramic radiographs. Methods: A systematic search was performed across 5 databases. Studies were included if they examined the PICO question of whether AI models (I) could improve the diagnostic accuracy (O) of OKC in panoramic radiographs (P) compared to reference standards (C). Key performance metrics including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) were extracted and pooled using random-effects models. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were conducted to identify sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated through funnel plots and Egger's test. Results: Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity across all studies was 83.66% (95% CI:73.75%-93.57%) and specificity was 82.89% (95% CI:70.31%-95.47%). YOLO-based models demonstrated superior diagnostic performance with a sensitivity of 96.4% and specificity of 96.0%, compared to other architectures. Meta-regression analysis indicated that model architecture was a significant predictor of diagnostic performance, accounting for a significant portion of the observed heterogeneity. However, the analysis also revealed publication bias and high variability across studies (Egger's test, Conclusion: AI models, particularly YOLO-based architectures, can improve the diagnostic accuracy of OKCs in panoramic radiographs. While AI shows strong capabilities in simple cases, it should complement, not replace, human expertise, especially in complex situations.
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.