ArticleKorean journal of orthodontics2025
Accuracy of machine learning-assisted prediction of the future need for orthognathic surgery in patients with cleft lip and palate.
Article in Korean journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- READER'S FORUM.Korean journal of orthodontics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the accuracy of machine learning (ML)-assisted prediction of the need for orthognathic surgery (OGS) in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). Methods: This study included 245 patients with CLP whose lateral cephalograms were available at pre-adolescence (T0; mean age, 8.45 years) and young adulthood (T1; mean age: 18.37 years). At T1, the patients were classified into the surgery group based on two criteria: (1) satisfying at least three of the following four conditions: ANB < -3°, Wits appraisal < -5 mm, APDI > 90°, and AB-MP < 60° and (2) undergoing presurgical orthodontic treatment or having undergone OGS. A total of 25.3% (n = 62) of patients were assigned to the surgery group, while 74.7% (n = 183) were assigned to the non-surgery group. Further, 80% and 20% of each group were used as training/validation and test sets, respectively. After 37 cephalometric variables and two cleft-related variables were measured, support vector machine (SVM) and feature importance analysis (FIA) with Shapley additive explanation were used to determine the prediction accuracy and predictors at T0. Results: SVM demonstrated area under curve 0.84, accuracy 83.7%, sensitivity 83.3%, and specificity 83.8%. FIA revealed 10 predictors: A to N-perpendicular, L1 to A-Pog, Pog to N-perpendicular, L1 to Lower-occlusal plane, Cleft type, U1 to Upper-occlusal plane, IMPA, gonial angle, anteroposterior facial height ratio, and ANB with accumulated importance of 64.51%. Conclusions: The ML algorithm used in this study may support clinical decision-making in identifying candidates for future OGS at 8 years of age.
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.