ArticleBMC oral health2026
A machine learning-based predictive model for mandibular third molar extraction difficulty: incorporating multimodal features and SHAP analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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.
- Explainable artificial intelligence in dental imaging: a systematic review of interpretability and the current state of trust evidence.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Pooled 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to establish a rapid and accurate predictive model for mandibular third molar (MM3) extraction difficulty based on machine learning and multimodal parameters.
methodsA dataset was constructed by integrating clinical characteristics with morphological features automatically extracted from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Extraction difficulty was determined by three experienced experts using a ten-factor scoring system and clinical judgment. Six machine learning (ML) models were developed: support vector machine (SVM), artificial neural network (ANN), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), and logistic regression. Model performance was optimized using grid search and five-fold cross-validation. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were used to interpret feature importance, and recursive feature elimination (RFE) was employed for validation.
resultsThe ML models predicted extraction difficulty efficiently, with XGBoost achieving the highest accuracy (88.24%), outperforming junior clinicians (83.53%). SHAP and RFE analyses highlighted the dominant role of morphological features, especially the angulation between adjacent teeth, contact area, and volume of the MM3. Clinical features such as fibrinogen and prothrombin time also contributed to prediction. The ML models demonstrated high accuracy and efficiency.
conclusionIntegrating morphological and clinical features significantly improves prediction performance. Adjacent tooth resistance was the most influential factor, followed by bone resistance and mandibular canal-related features.
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.