ArticleJournal of dental sciences2025
Accuracy of automated analysis in cephalometry.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial-Intelligence-Based Cephalometric Landmark Detection in Lateral Cephalograms.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A cephalometric analysis of underlying components of deep overbite malocclusion.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Clinical accuracy of cephalometric analysis using deep learning-based automated landmark identification on CBCT in class I and class II malocclusions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been widely used in medicine, including orthodontics. The aim of this study was to investigate the training process of a cascaded Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), built for landmark detection on various qualities of lateral cephalograms and to determine the speed, reliability and clinical accuracy of an algorithm for orthodontic diagnosis. Materials and methods: The CNN model was trained on a total of 1600 lateral cephalograms. After each training datasets (input of 400, 800, 1200, 1600 images) were added, the model was evaluated on a test set containing 78 images of varying quality. We measured the accuracy of AI-based landmark detection by statistical analysis of intra- and interexaminer distance errors, as well as examiner versus model predictions, furthermore by prognosis of consecutive diagnostic failures. Results: There was a clear improvement in time efficiency (5.25 min), and substantial improvements were observed during the training process. In terms of accuracy, based on Euclidean distance error measurements, the best model provided more consistent dot tracing than two different examiners or the same examiner on two different occasions. Angular (0.05°-1.86°) and proportional (3.14%) errors, measured by the best model, were considered clinically acceptable. Conclusion: The application of a proper AI-algorithm for orthodontic cephalometric analysis results in lower variability between models than the variability observed among experts. AI predictions supported the examiners in finding the correct location of the specific landmarks more accurately and in less time as the training of the automatic prediction model improved. Further research could investigate the therapeutic consequences.
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.