ArticleBMC oral health2025
Development and verification of a convolutional neural network-based model for automatic mandibular canal localization on multicenter CBCT images.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence-based segmentation of mandibular canal on cone-beam computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Oral radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Explainability, Bias and Generalizability of AI Models in Dentistry: A Systematic Review of Model Interpretability and Equity.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of artificial intelligence applications in periodontics: a thematic narrative review.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDevelopment and verification of a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based deep learning (DL) model for mandibular canal (MC) localization on multicenter cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images.
methodsIn this study, a total 1056 CBCT scans in multiple centers were collected. Of these, 836 CBCT scans of one manufacturer were used for development of CNN model (training set: validation set: internal testing set = 640:360:36) and an external testing dataset of 220 CBCT scans from other four manufacturers were tested. The convolution module was built using a stack of Conv + InstanceNorm + LeakyReLU. Average symmetric surface distance (ASSD) and symmetric mean curve distance (SMCD) were used for quantitative evaluation of this model for both internal testing data and partial external testing data. Visual scoring (1-5 points) were performed to evaluate the accuracy and generalizability of MC localization for all external testing data. The differences of ASSD, SMCD and visual scores among the four manufacturers were compared for external testing dataset. The time of manual and automatic MC localization were recorded.
resultsFor the internal testing dataset, the average ASSD and SMCD was 0.486 mm and 0.298 mm respectively. For the external testing dataset, 86.8% CBCT scans' visual scores ≥ 4 points; the average ASSD and SMCD of 40 CBCT scans with visual scores ≥ 4 points were 0.438 mm and 0.185 mm respectively; there were significant differences among the four manufacturers for ASSD, SMCD and visual scores (p < 0.05). And the time for bilateral automatic MC localization was 8.52s (± 0.97s).
conclusionsIn this study, a CNN model was developed for automatic MC localization, and external testing of large sample on multicenter CBCT images showed its excellent clinical application potential.
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.