ArticleProgress in orthodontics2025
Accuracy comparative study of automatic landmarking and diagnostic models on lateral cephalograms.
Article in Progress in orthodontics, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe application of deep learning techniques in cephalometric analysis has become increasingly prominent. Although automatic landmarking models for cephalometric analysis have been developed, their accuracy still requires validation and relies heavily on clinicians to resolve discrepancies between results. To address these limitations, automatic diagnostic models have gained attention. However, there is no direct evidence establishing the superiority of one model over the other, especially the generalization and transferability.
methodsBased on the same northern Chinese population external test dataset data and the data of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) 2015 ISBI (International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging) Grand Challenge dataset, we compared the performance, generalization ability, and transfer ability of the proposed two models, respectively.
resultsOur findings suggest that the automatic landmarking model outperforms the automatic diagnostic model in both external test dataset, with an accuracy of 90.80% on the IEEE dataset.
conclusionsIn this study, the comparison was indirect, with each model having its strengths: the automatic landmarking model offers precise measurements, while the automatic diagnostic model provides quicker results. The choice between them depends on clinical needs, and future work should explore hybrid models to combine the advantages of both.
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.