ArticleBMC oral health2025
Populational influence on cephalometric landmark identification: performance of two AI-driven software programs in Brazilian and Korean 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the performance of cephalometric landmark identification performed by two AI-driven software programs in images from different populations (Brazilian and Korean).
methodsSixty lateral cephalometric radiographs (30 Brazilian and 30 Korean) were analyzed. The Brazilian images were acquired using the Orthophos XG 5/Ceph device, while the Korean images were obtained from the International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging 2015 database. Images of patients with permanent dentition were included, excluding those with poor head positioning or severe craniofacial deformities. Twenty cephalometric landmarks were identified by two examiners used as the reference standard. Two AI-driven software programs, CefBot™ (Brazil) and WebCeph™ (Korea), automatically identified the same landmarks. Coordinate values for each landmark were measured using ImageJ, and the data were analyzed with Analysis of Variance and Dunnett's post-hoc test.
resultsThe Brazilian software showed high accuracy in identifying landmarks on Brazilian images (90%) but was less precise on Korean images (80%), with significant discrepancies in the Glabella, Menton L, Basion, and Orbitale landmarks. Similarly, the Korean software had a higher accuracy in its own population (95%) than in another population (85%), with notable inaccuracies in the Menton L, Basion, and Porion landmarks.
conclusionDiscrepancies in the identification of specific landmarks, such as Glabella and Menton L, suggest that the accuracy of the software may be influenced by the training process itself and by the population origin of the training data.
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.