ArticleScientific reports2026
AI-assisted age estimation from occlusal tooth wear using biofluorescence imaging.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Association between red biofluorescence and microbial dysbiosis in cariogenic biofilms: an in vitro study.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This proof-of-concept study evaluated the feasibility of an AI-based age estimation model using an occlusal tooth wear parameter (ΔFwear) quantified from biofluorescence. Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) images from 104 adults (20–70 years; 2,733 teeth) were analyzed. To prevent data leakage, the dataset was split at the participant level. A random forest (RF) regressor was optimized, and recursive feature elimination with cross-validation (RFECV) identified efficient tooth subsets. Final models were validated using an independent test set, and correlations between mean ΔFwear and chronological age were assessed. Cross-validation (CV) performance peaked with three teeth; however, independent testing showed that a model incorporating seven key teeth achieved the best generalization performance. This 7-tooth model achieved a mean absolute error (MAE) of 7.49 years (95% CI: 5.90–9.17), comparable to the full 28-tooth model (MAE: 7.27 years; p = 0.79), with a stronger Pearson correlation with age (r = 0.78 vs. 0.71) and an equivalent R2 of 0.61. These findings support the feasibility of integrating ΔFwear with an interpretable machine-learning framework for non-invasive age estimation. While the reduced 7-tooth model offers analytical efficiency, further validation in larger and more diverse cohorts is required to confirm its generalizability for broader forensic or epidemiological applications.
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.