ReviewCaries research2026
Prognostic Clinical Predictive Models for Dental Caries Using Artificial Intelligence: Methodological Considerations.
Review in Caries research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is currently used to develop clinical predictive models for dental caries. However, most prognostic models lack key methodological components. Few reach clinical practice, and fewer demonstrate clinical benefit. SUMMARY: This narrative methodological review examines considerations for developing, validating, and implementing AI-based caries prognostic models. Based on established prediction model frameworks (TRIPOD+AI, PROBAST+AI, and PROGRESS), we contextualize eight critical phases for caries-specific application. Each phase addresses challenges specific to caries, e.g., clustering of teeth within patients, dominance of baseline caries experience as a predictor, and frequent absence of external validation. Addressing these phases reduces bias, improves reproducibility, and supports meaningful evaluation of clinical impact. AI-based prognostic models should serve as decision-support tools that inform clinician and patient choices rather than substitutes for clinical judgment. KEY MESSAGES: (i) Most AI-based caries prognostic models are never implemented and fewer of those implemented demonstrate clinical benefit. Methodological deficiencies explain this gap. (ii) Caries prognostic research faces field-specific challenges such as retrospective design, clustering of teeth within patients, and dominance of baseline caries experience. Valid caries prognostic models require attention to eight phases, from problem selection through deployment and ongoing monitoring. (iii) Better discrimination (higher AUC) does not indicate clinical usefulness. Calibration and decision curve analysis are essential yet frequently absent from published studies. (iv) Researchers should report regulatory considerations and plan prospective impact assessment from study inception. Models generating risk estimates that influence clinical decisions qualify as software as a medical device, requiring regulatory compliance and demonstrated clinical impact before deployment.
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.