ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025
Artificial Intelligence and Hand Hygiene Accuracy: A New Era in Infection Control for Dental Practices.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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.
- Infection control practices in Indian dental clinics: A cross-sectional study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for monitoring hand hygiene compliance in healthcare settings: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in infection prevention and control education: toward intelligent, real-time clinical learning systems.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Comparative Evaluation and Performance of Large Language Models in Clinical Infection Control Scenarios: A Benchmark Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe study aimed to assess the efficacy of an artificial intelligence (AI) model in evaluating hand hygiene (HH) performance compared to infection control auditors in dental clinics. MATERIAL AND
methodThe AI model utilized a pretrained convolutional neural network (CNN) and was fine-tuned on a custom data set of videos showing dental students performing alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) procedures. A total of 66 videos were recorded, with 33 used for training and 11 for validating the model. The remaining 22 videos were designated for testing and the AI- infection control auditors comparison experiment. Two infection control auditors assessed the HH performance videos using a standardized checklist. The model's performance was evaluated through precision, recall, and F1 score across various classes. The level of agreement between the auditors and the AI assessments was measured using Cohen's kappa, and the sensitivity and specificity of the AI were compared to those of the infection control auditors.
resultsThe AI model has learned to differentiate between classes of hand movement, with an overall F1 score of 0.85. Results showed a 90.91% agreement rate between the AI model and infection control auditors in evaluating HH steps, with a sensitivity of 85.7% and specificity of 100% in identifying acceptable HH practices. Step 3 (back of fingers to opposing palm with fingers interlocked) was consistently identified as the most frequently missed step by both the AI model and the infection control auditors.
conclusionThe AI model assessment of HH performance closely matched auditors' evaluations, suggesting its reliability as a tool for evaluating and mentoring HH in dental clinics. Future research should explore the application of AI technology in different dental settings to further validate its feasibility and adaptability.
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.