ArticleJournal of imaging2026
AI-Based Detection of Osteoporosis on Dental Radiographs: Influence of Region-of-Interest Selection on Classification Performance.
Article in Journal of imaging, 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
Osteoporosis may alter mandibular bone structure and peri-implant remodeling, but it remains unclear whether such changes are detectable on dental radiographs using deep learning. This retrospective study evaluated whether osteoporosis can be discriminated in two mandibular regions of interest: peri-implant bone and the mental foramen region. Digital periapical radiographs acquired between November 2012 and October 2024 were analyzed in 51 women, including 25 patients with osteoporosis and 26 non-osteoporotic controls without a documented history or diagnosis of osteoporosis; the osteoporosis group was significantly older than the control group. Two binary classification experiments were performed using patient-level fivefold grouped cross-validation. The peri-implant experiment included 1682 cropped images and used an image-plus-metadata ResNet-18 model incorporating the time interval between implant placement and radiograph acquisition. The mental foramen experiment included 102 cropped images and used an image-only ResNet-18 model. Mean accuracy, F1 score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.613, 0.628, and 0.713 for the peri-implant region of interest (ROI) and 0.701, 0.713, and 0.744 for the mental foramen ROI, respectively. Both experiments showed substantial fold-to-fold variability. These findings suggest that ROI selection influences model behavior, but neither approach yielded sufficiently stable ROI-level classification performance under patient-level grouped validation to support individual patient-level screening claims. Nondiscriminatory AI results should therefore be interpreted as limited evidence under the present experimental conditions rather than as proof of radiographic equivalence.
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.