ArticleFrontiers in oral health2025
Artificial intelligence-based diagnosis of oral leukoplakia using deep convolutional neural networks Xception and MobileNet-v2.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
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.
- Assessment of artificial intelligence in detecting errors on panoramic radiographs.Imaging science in dentistry · 2026Article
- Prospective applications of artificial intelligence for the diagnosis of oral leukoplakia: a scoping review.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in the study of oral lichen planus characteristics: a review.BDJ open · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence for dental caries detection: A mixup, fine-tuning, and quantization approach on the MobileNetV2 model.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of pemphigus and pemphigoid groups of disorders based on clinical images: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The present study aims to employ and compare the artificial intelligence (AI) convolutional neural networks (CNN) Xception and MobileNet-v2 for the diagnosis of Oral leukoplakia (OL) and to differentiate its clinical types from other white lesions of the oral cavity. Materials and methods: Clinical photographs of oral leukoplakia and non-oral leukoplakia lesions were gathered from the SRM Dental College archives. An aggregate of 659 clinical photos, based on convenience sampling were included from the archive in the dataset. Around 202 pictures were of oral leukoplakia while 457 were other white lesions. Lesions considered in the differential diagnosis of oral leukoplakia like frictional keratosis, oral candidiasis, oral lichen planus, lichenoid reactions, mucosal burns, pouch keratosis, and oral carcinoma were included under the other white lesions subset. A total of 261 images constituting the test sample, were arbitrarily selected from the collected dataset, whilst the remaining images served as training and validation datasets. The training dataset were engaged in data augmentation to enhance the quantity and variation. Performance metrics of accuracy, precision, recall, and f1_score were incorporated for the CNN model. Results: CNN models both Xception and MobileNetV2 were able to diagnose OL and other white lesions using photographs. In terms of F1-score and overall accuracy, the MobilenetV2 model performed noticeably better than the other model. Conclusion: We demonstrate that CNN models are capable of 89%-92% accuracy and can be best used to discern OL and its clinical types from other white lesions of the oral cavity.
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.