ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2026
A Commentary on AI-based Prediction Models in Periodontitis Progression.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 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
a commentary onFurquim CP, Caruth L, Chandrasekaran G, et al. "Developing Predictive Models for Periodontitis Progression Using Artificial Intelligence: A Longitudinal Cohort Study" Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2025;52:1478-1490 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.14194 . STUDY
designA prospective multi-center cohort study utilized data from previous work that evaluated periodontitis progression over a 12-month follow-up. Baseline demographic, clinical, and immunological variables were used to develop predictive models employing Logistic Regression (LR), Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), and Probabilistic Graphical Modelling (PGM) approaches. CASE SELECTION: A total of 415 participants aged 25 years or older with at least 20 natural teeth were initially enrolled as part of the original study. Smokers, diabetic patients, pregnant or lactating women, individuals who had recently received periodontal therapy, antibiotics, or chronic anti-inflammatory medications, and those with incomplete data were excluded. Only participants who completed the 12-month follow-up and all bi-monthly assessments were included in the final analysis. Consequently, 273 participants remained, comprising 72 healthy/gingivitis individuals, 24 with Stage II periodontitis, and 177 with Stage III periodontitis. DATA ANALYSIS: Model performance was assessed using accuracy, Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC), Area Under the Precision Recall Curve (AUPRC), sensitivity, specificity, and Brier scores. Feature importance and model interpretability were evaluated using SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) analysis.
resultsPGM approach demonstrated the strongest overall performance. The best-performing model incorporated clinical variables, salivary IL-1β, age, and sex. LR showed moderate discrimination but poor classification balance, while the MLP demonstrated limited clinical usefulness. Among all predictors, the number of periodontal pockets ≥5 mm emerged as the most influential clinical feature, while IL-1β was the most important biological marker.
conclusionsThis study provides encouraging evidence that Machine Learning (ML) approaches can improve the prediction of periodontitis progression. It also suggests the value of integrating biological markers with conventional clinical assessment.
Identifiers
42834076What 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.