ArticleJournal of oral rehabilitation2026
Artificial Intelligence-Based Approach for Determining the Risk of Temporomandibular Disorders.
Article in Journal of oral rehabilitation, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to predict TMD using ML approaches based on clinical and sociodemographic variables to aid in the early detection and risk assessment.
methodsThe study was on patients with and without TMD who met the inclusion criteria in a retrospective-prospective manner. Clinical and demographic variables of 340 patients were collected during the study. Data were split into 80% training and 20% test sets. Five different machine learning models (DANets, KAN, KNN, MLP, SVM) were used. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, weighted precision, recall, and F1-score. A model interpretability analysis was performed using SHapley Additive ExPlanations (SHAP).
resultsFor result classification, the DANets model achieved the highest performance (accuracy = 0.8529). The DANets model achieved the strongest performance in diagnostic classification by far (accuracy = 0.8382, F1 = 0.8212). SHAP-based analyses revealed that demographic factors (especially age and gender) and certain clinical symptoms (e.g., joint pain, clicking, and limited mouth opening) had the highest contribution to the models' decision-making processes.
conclusionAI-based models-particularly deep learning algorithms-may provide substantial support to clinicians in the diagnosis and risk assessment of TMD. These tools may reduce diagnostic uncertainty, especially for inexperienced practitioners, facilitate early diagnosis and referral processes, and decrease the risk of TMD progression.
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.