ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Transfer learning models in the detection of pulp calcifications- A preliminary study.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulp calcifications (PC) play a major role in the clinical outcome of endodontic treatment. Dentists use different radiographic modalities for detecting the presence of PCs. Transfer learning models have shown promising results with low computational resources in the detection and classification of diseases and conditions in dental radiographs. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of transfer learning models in the detection of PCs in cropped panoramic radiographs (PRs). Materials and methods: Two calibrated examiners collected 240 cropped PR images (120 with PCs and 120 without PCs) of maxillary and/or mandibular posterior teeth. The images were preprocessed using CLAHE (Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization) and then augmented. Three pre-trained models, VGG16, ResNet101V2, and MobileNetV2, were used for classification of the images. A Fine-tuning approach was used for training the model. Results: The inter-rater reliability among the five examiners was 0.91. VGG 16 was the best-performing model with training, validation, and test accuracies of 0.80, 0.85, and 0.85, respectively. VGG16 showed a precision of 0.84, a recall of 0.87, an F1-score of 0.86, and an AUC of 0.93. ResNet101V2 and MobileNetV2 showed test accuracies of 69% and 50%, respectively. Conclusions: The Transfer-learning model VGG 16 outperformed other models in the detection of PCs in cropped PRs. Due to the use of cropped PRs, the model cannot be generalized; however, future work will be aimed at attaining similar performance metrics in uncropped PRs in larger datasets.
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.