ArticleHealth science reports2026
Agreement Between WebCeph and Manual Cephalometric Analysis: Cleft and Non-Cleft Patients Comparison: A Retrospective Method-Comparison Study.
Article in Health science reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Cephalometric analysis is essential in orthodontic diagnosis, but landmark identification is particularly challenging in cleft lip and palate (CLP). Manual tracing remains, however, time-consuming and operator-dependent, the gold standard. AI-based systems such as WebCeph may improve efficiency, though agreement with manual tracing remains unclear. This study evaluated agreement between WebCeph and manual tracing in complete unilateral CLP (CUCLP) patients, comparing discrepancies with non-cleft controls. Methods: This retrospective method-comparison study included lateral cephalograms of 45 children with repaired CUCLP and 30 age-matched controls (8-12 years). Seven angular measurements based on 14 landmarks were analyzed using manual tracing and WebCeph. Agreement was assessed using the Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), group differences were tested with parametric or non-parametric tests, measurement error was calculated using Dahlberg's formula. Results: Of 75 cephalograms (mean age 8.85 ± 1.43 years), WebCeph failed in 17 cases (22.6%), with similar failure rates in cleft (22.2%) and non-cleft (23.3%) groups, leaving 58 radiographs for analysis. ICC ranged from 0.332 to 0.845: good for SNB, and ANB; moderate for SNA and U1-SN; and poor for gonial angle, IMPA, and nasolabial angle. Significant differences occurred for gonial angle, nasolabial angle, U1-SN, and IMPA in cleft patients and for SNA in controls ( Conclusion: WebCeph showed variable agreement with manual tracing, from moderate to good for skeletal measurements (SNA, SNB, ANB) to poor for gonial angle, IMPA, and nasolabial angle. Similar discrepancy patterns, failure rates, and disagreement magnitudes across cleft and non-cleft groups suggest algorithmic limitations as a contributing factor, though a meaningful influence of cleft-related anatomy cannot be excluded given the sample size. AI-based cephalometry should be used as an adjunct rather than a replacement for manual tracing in clinical decision-making.
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.