ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of 2D, 2.5D, and 3D landmark localization networks for 3D cephalometry in CT 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 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.
- Interpretable deep learning and radiomics for predicting the occurrence of brain metastases following prophylactic brain irradiation in small cell lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate landmark localization is important for three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis. Although deep learning has shown promising performance for 3D landmark localization, the high computational burden of processing volumetric data remains a challenge. The 2.5D networks have emerged to provide the good performance while mitigating computational and memory requirements in the medical domain. Therefore, we compared the performance of 2D, 2.5D and 3D network-based landmark localization.
methodsWe collected landmark datasets from the volumetric computed tomography (CT) scans of 40 patients. We implemented the 2D, 2.5D and 3D networks for 3D landmark localization. Additionally, we designed a global-to-local loss to mitigate foreground-background imbalance, and employed both soft and hard voting in a network ensemble to improve the robustness. We evaluated each network's performance in terms of accuracy and computational load.
resultsThe 2.5D network-based landmark localization achieved a mean radial error (MRE) of 1.19[Formula: see text]0.65 mm and a successful detection rate (SDR) of 86.46% at 2mm, with a favorable computational load. These results outperformed those of the 2D and 3D networks. Furthermore, using the global-to-local loss led to higher performance compared to using the global loss alone. Soft voting proved the most robust performance among voting methods for landmark localization.
conclusionsComprehensive experiments demonstrate that the 2.5D network offers an optimal trade-off between computational load and accuracy. These findings highlight the potential for more efficient and reliable 3D cephalometry under limited computational resources.
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.