ArticleBMC oral health2026
Automated periapical lesion segmentation and area-based PAI indexing: a comparative deep learning study on periapical radiographs.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- Automated Detection and Ordinal Severity Grading of Periapical Lesions on Panoramic Radiographs Using a Lesion-Preserving Tiling and Ordinal-Aware YOLO Framework.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence can standardize periapical assessment, but few studies map pixel-level segmentation to clinically interpretable Periapical Index (PAI) categories under a unified protocol.
methodsWe retrospectively assembled 900 anonymized periapical radiographs with expert masks and patient-level splits (train/val/test: 594/145/161). Four architectures (U-Net, ResUNet34, DeepLabV3, HRNet) were trained with identical preprocessing, augmentation, and binary cross-entropy (BCE) + Dice loss. On the independent test set, segmentation and image-level detection (sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1, AUC) were computed at a prespecified operating point. An area-based PAI score (aPAI) was derived from lesion-to-image area ratios using prespecified thresholds, providing a quantitative, size-based proxy for conventional PAI categories that does not incorporate qualitative radiographic features such as border definition or trabecular changes.
resultsDeepLabV3 achieved the most balanced detection (accuracy 90.1%, sensitivity 92.8%, F1 91.8%), while HRNet yielded the highest specificity (87.5%) and precision (91.4%). Friedman/Wilcoxon analyses showed significant overall between-model differences. After Bonferroni correction (adjusted α = 0.0083), only the DeepLabV3 versus U-Net comparison remained statistically significant for both binary lesion detection and aPAI classification (both p = 0.0012); no other pairwise differences reached the corrected threshold. aPAI classification accuracy ranged from 72.7% (U-Net) to 84.5% (DeepLabV3).
conclusionsSegmentation-based, area-derived PAI scoring is feasible and consistent across architectures. DeepLabV3 is preferable for screening workflows requiring high sensitivity, whereas HRNet minimizes false positives for confirmatory use. The unified pipeline provides an interpretable bridge from pixel probabilities to standard PAI categories.
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.