ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2025
Factors influencing the predictive performance of artificial intelligence for craniofacial growth.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for craniofacial and mandibular growth prediction: A systematic review.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Pooled it
- Present and Future of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate factors influencing the prediction error of artificial intelligence (AI) that predict craniofacial growth and to identify an optimal AI training condition to improve the predictive performance of the AI model. Materials and Methods: Original growth data were collected from the Mathews longitudinal serial growth study. From the original data consisting of 1257 datasets from 33 growing children of northern European descent, 60 data subsets were generated using random resampling procedures to include 12, 18, and 24 subjects, with data sizes of 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 datasets. The resampling procedures were repeated four times. Each subset was used to train and create a total of 60 AI models. The prediction accuracy of these models was evaluated using growth prediction errors at the lower lip landmark, labrale inferius, as a benchmark indicator. The prediction errors of the 60 AI models were analyzed according to the number of subjects and data sizes. Results: Prediction error decreased as the data size increased. However, increasing the number of subjects within the growth data led to higher prediction errors. Notably, the increase in prediction error caused by adding more subjects was more substantial than the improvement achieved by increasing the data size. Conclusions: The findings suggest that developing highly accurate AI-based craniofacial growth prediction models remains a significant challenge, even with extensive datasets.
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.