SynthesisClinical oral investigations2026
Detection of oral potentially malignant disorders and oral cancer with white light through deep learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe research question was: How accurate is artificial intelligence (AI) in diagnosing Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders (OPMD)/oral cancer in patients of any age, using digital photographic images under white light? MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. The inclusion criteria were: detection of OPMD or Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OSCC). The risk of bias was assessed with the QUADAS-C tool. Forest plots were generated with the specificity and sensitivity of oral cancer and OPMD. A bivariate random effects meta-analysis was performed, by combining sensitivity and specificity.
resultsThe bivariate model showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.728-0872) and a grouped specificity of 0.161 (95% CI, 0.113-0.223) for OPMD detection, and a combined sensitivity of 0.836 (95% CI, 9.730-0.906) and combined specificity of 0.138 (95% CI, 0.081-0.226) for oral cancer.
conclusionsDespite substantial heterogeneity among the various Deep Learning algorithms evaluated, most models demonstrated acceptable diagnostic capability for identifying OPMD and OSCC from digital images. These findings support the promising role of artificial intelligence in enhancing diagnostic processes within dentistry. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Being able to diagnose OPMD through the use of digital photography allows for an early diagnosis, especially in places with limited resources. The possibility of performing assessments via smartphone devices increases accessibility and reduces dependence on costly specialized equipment, broadening its applicability in clinical practice.
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.