ArticleJournal of clinical periodontology2026
Can Artificial Intelligence Match Human Expertise in Long-Term Periodontal Prognosis? A Comparative Accuracy Study.
Article in Journal of clinical periodontology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the prognostic performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of experienced clinicians in predicting tooth loss over a 10-year period. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn AI model trained on structured clinical and radiographic data was compared with 12 periodontists and 11 general dentists (GDs), who independently assigned prognostic scores (0-10 scale) to 300 teeth with known 10-year outcomes. AI and clinician performance were evaluated under a fixed threshold and group-specific optimal thresholds. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration were used for comparison.
resultsUsing the fixed threshold (score > 5 = survival), clinicians achieved higher overall accuracy than AI (75.6% periodontists, 74.9% GDs, 69.2% AI; p < 0.05), with sensitivity low and comparable across groups (14.7%-22.7%). Using group-specific optimal thresholds, AI achieved the highest accuracy for all-cause tooth loss (67.5%) and performed comparably to GDs for periodontitis-related tooth loss (76.2% vs. 76.3%). Calibration was substantially worse for AI (Brier score 0.247) than for periodontists and GDs (0.171, 0.170). Individually, AI performance overlapped with that of several clinicians.
conclusionClinicians outperformed AI under a fixed threshold, but AI performance was comparable to clinicians using optimal thresholds, situating AI within the range of experienced clinicians despite modest overall predictive ability.
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.