ArticleJournal of imaging2026
Comparative Evaluation of Vision-Language Models for Detecting and Localizing Dental Lesions from Intraoral Images.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To assess the efficiency of vision-language models in detecting and classifying carious and non-carious lesions from intraoral photo imaging. A dataset of 172 annotated images were classified for microcavitation, cavitated lesions, staining, calculus, and non-carious lesions. Florence-2, PaLI-Gemma, and YOLOv8 models were trained on the dataset and model performance. The dataset was divided into 80:10:10 split, and the model performance was evaluated using mean average precision (mAP), mAP50-95, class-specific precision and recall. YOLOv8 outperformed the vision-language models, achieving a mean average precision (mAP) of 37% with a precision of 42.3% (with 100% for cavitation detection) and 31.3% recall. PaLI-Gemma produced a recall of 13% and 21%. Florence-2 yielded a mean average precision of 10% with a precision and recall was 51% and 35%. YOLOv8 achieved the strongest overall performance. Florence-2 and PaLI-Gemma models underperformed relative to YOLOv8 despite the potential for multimodal contextual understanding, highlighting the need for larger, more diverse datasets and hybrid architectures to achieve improved performance.
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.