ArticleJournal of dental sciences2026
Rigorous validation of machine learning models for orthodontic extraction prediction using nested cross-validation and smotenc-integrated pipelines.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 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
Background/purpose: Machine learning (ML) in orthodontics often suffers from optimistic bias due to data leakage and improper handling of class imbalance. This study implemented and evaluated a production-grade validation framework - nested cross-validation (CV) - for three distinct algorithm classes (logistic regression, random forest, and gradient boosting) using a consensus-labeled orthodontic dataset. Materials and methods: A retrospective dataset of 500 patients (334 non-extraction/166 extraction) was curated with 41 processed features. Two stratified split protocols (70/30 and 80/20) were evaluated to assess model robustness. To ensure methodological rigor, a 5-fold outer/3-fold inner nested cross-validation was implemented. Crucially, SMOTENC (synthetic minority over-sampling technique for nominal and continuous) was integrated inside the training pipeline to prevent data leakage. Results: All models achieved high discrimination (ROC-AUC Conclusion: The use of nested CV combined with pipeline-integrated SMOTENC provides a conservative and reliable estimate of model performance. While gradient boosting (XGBoost) offers superior predictive power, the framework highlights the trade-off between stability (linear models) and performance (boosting) in dentistry.
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.