ArticleScientific reports2026
Detection of maxillary sinusitis of endodontic origin in cone-beam CT images using deep learning algorithms.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scans were retrospectively collected and examined to acquire a balanced dataset representative of Normal Maxillary Sinus (NMS), Maxillary Sinusitis of Endodontic origin (MSEO), and Maxillary Sinusitis of Non-Endodontic origin (MS-NEO) according to established criteria. Data were manually labeled, pre-processed and split into training, validation, and testing groups. A custom model workflow started by anatomic classification of input images as being coronal, sagittal, or axial, followed by segmentation of roots, lining, and sinus regions, followed by extraction of radiographic sinus features for final classification of NMS, MSEO, or MS-NEO. Model performance on testing and external datasets was performed evaluating Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1, and DICE scores. Results showed that the anatomic classifier achieved overall Accuracy, Precision, Recall, and F1 scores of 0.99 and 0.98 on the testing and external datasets. The overall DICE scores for sagittal, coronal, and axial segmenters were 0.8, 1, and 0.9 on the testing, and 0.8, 0.9, and 0.9 on the external dataset. The features extractor achieved overall Accuracy and F1 scores of 0.9-1 for sagittal, coronal, and axial classifiers for testing and external datasets, while the Multi-View classifier exhibited excellent metrics for both datasets with potential to improve clinical diagnosis of MSEO.
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.