ReviewThe Japanese dental science review2026
Clinician-accessible automated machine learning in oral healthcare: A systematic review.
Review in The Japanese dental science review, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automated machine learning (AutoML) has emerged as a clinician-accessible approach to artificial intelligence by automating key stages of model development, including algorithm selection and hyperparameter optimization. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the application, performance, and translational relevance of AutoML in oral healthcare. Electronic searches of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and grey literature were conducted. Nineteen primary studies met the inclusion criteria. AutoML was applied across multiple dental specialties, including periodontology, orthodontics, pediatric dentistry, oral surgery, oral radiology, and public oral health, using heterogeneous data modalities such as radiographic images, clinical records, photographs, and omics data. Most studies reported strong performance on internal validation (e.g., cross-validation or validation splits) and/or independent hold-out test sets, particularly for imaging-based classification tasks, with several models achieving high accuracy and discrimination. However, external validation was uncommon, sample sizes were frequently limited, and substantial risk of bias was identified, particularly in analysis and participant selection. No study evaluated real-world clinical implementation or patient outcomes. Overall, AutoML shows promise in reducing technical barriers and supporting clinician-led artificial intelligence research in dentistry. Nevertheless, current evidence base remains exploratory, and rigorous external validation, standardized reporting, and prospective clinical evaluation are required before routine clinical adoption.
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.