ArticleImaging science in dentistry2025
Improving cervical maturation degree classification accuracy using a multi-stage deep learning approach.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Classifying cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) stages aids in determining the peak period of growth and in predicting growth rates and patterns. This study aimed to develop a multistage framework for the automated classification of CVM. Materials and Methods: The dataset consisted of 2325 lateral cephalograms. Two orthodontists independently classified these images into 6 categories. One object detection model (Faster RCNN) and 2 classification models (ResNet 101) were implemented using the Python programming language and the PyTorch library. The first classification model divided images into 2 primary groups (CS1-CS3 and CS4-CS6) based on the morphology of the C4 vertebra. The second model subsequently classified each primary group into their respective subcategories. Each classification model was trained and evaluated using a 10-fold cross-validation strategy. The learning process of the models was visualized with gradient-weighted class activation maps. Results: The overall framework achieved an accuracy of 82.96%. Object detection for region-of-interest extraction reached mAP50 and mAP75 values of 100%. The first classification model demonstrated an accuracy of 99.10% on the hold-out test set. The classifier for CS1-CS3 images showed higher accuracy than the classifier for CS4-CS6 images (86.49% vs. 82.80%). Conclusion: The accuracy achieved by this fully automated framework was promising.
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.