SynthesisBiomedical engineering online2026
Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence models for temporomandibular joint anomalies on MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Biomedical engineering online, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) techniques are increasingly applied to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting temporomandibular joint (TMJ) anomalies; however, their overall diagnostic accuracy and generalizability remain uncertain.
objectivesTo systematically review and meta-analyse the diagnostic performance of AI models for TMJ anomaly detection on MRI and to identify factors influencing model performance.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted for studies published between January 2015 and September 2025. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. Eligible studies developed and tested AI, machine learning, or deep learning models on human TMJ MRI and reported quantitative performance metrics. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a bivariate random-effects model, while pooled accuracy was derived using logit transformation. Heterogeneity (I
resultsFourteen studies were included in the systematic review, of which six met the criteria for meta-analysis. Across these six studies, 18 models were analyzed for accuracy, 29 for sensitivity, and 24 for specificity. The pooled diagnostic accuracy was 0.487 (95% CI 0.403-0.571), with pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.399 (95% CI 0.348-0.450) and 0.399 (95% CI 0.343-0.456), respectively, all showing substantial heterogeneity (I
conclusionsAdvanced deep learning architectures such as ResNet-18, Inception v3, and EfficientNet-b4 demonstrated superior diagnostic performance for detecting temporomandibular joint anomalies on MRI. These findings highlight the potential of AI-assisted MRI interpretation to improve diagnostic consistency, efficiency, and early detection of TMJ pathology. However, substantial heterogeneity and limited external validation currently limit clinical translation. Standardized multicenter studies and transparent model validation are essential to ensure reliable integration of AI tools into clinical TMJ imaging workflows.
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.