ReviewJournal of oral & facial pain and headache2026
Artificial intelligence-based prognostic modeling in temporomandibular disorders and chronic orofacial pain: a critical conceptual review.
Review in Journal of oral & facial pain and headache, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This conceptual review (ⅰ) analyzes the outcomes predicted, data modalities, modeling approaches, validation strategies, and reporting quality of existing artificial intelligence (AI)-driven prognostic models in temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and chronic orofacial pain (OFP); (ⅱ) identifies enduring methodological and ethical constraints that hinder clinical translation; and (ⅲ) proposes a pragmatic research framework to guide the responsible development of clinically relevant prognostic tools for TMD and OFP. The review covers peer-reviewed and other relevant publications from the previous decade, emphasizing AI or machine-learning (ML) based models for prognosis, outcome prediction, or trajectory modeling in TMD and OFP populations. Established paradigms, including the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis plus Artificial Intelligence extension (TRIPOD + AI) and the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), were used to assess the literature. Methodologies remain highly inconsistent, and current literature lacks the volume and rigor required for clinical translation. Most AI research has concentrated on diagnostic classification rather than prognostic modeling. Small sample sizes, short follow-up, single-center datasets, omission of psychosocial factors, and a general lack of external validation hamper the few prognostic studies that exist. Most model outputs are neither clinically actionable nor suitable for direct use in treatment decisions, limiting their value for clinicians and their potential impact on patient outcomes. Research applying AI to forecast TMD and OFP remains in its early stages. Without a prognosis-first research design, longitudinal data integration, inclusion of biopsychosocial predictors, and clinically significant outcome objectives, existing models are unlikely to influence clinical practice. Clear research objectives, reporting criteria, and ethical norms must be established before AI-based prognostic models can be confidently adopted in TMD and OFP clinical practice. Future objectives comprise establishing multicenter longitudinal cohorts, conducting trajectory-based modeling, employing federated learning for external validation, and initiating prospective clinical trials to demonstrate clear clinical benefit.
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.