Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence-aided caries detection on bitewing radiographs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Nour Ammar , Jan Kühnisch
{"title":"Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence-aided caries detection on bitewing radiographs: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Nour Ammar ,&nbsp;Jan Kühnisch","doi":"10.1016/j.jdsr.2024.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The accuracy of artificial intelligence-aided (AI) caries diagnosis can vary considerably depending on numerous factors. This review aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AI models for caries detection and classification on bitewing radiographs. Publications after 2010 were screened in five databases. A customized risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool was developed and applied to the 14 articles that met the inclusion criteria out of 935 references. Dataset sizes ranged from 112 to 3686 radiographs. While 86 % of the studies reported a model with an accuracy of ≥80 %, most exhibited unclear or high risk of bias. Three studies compared the model’s diagnostic performance to dentists, in which the models consistently showed higher average sensitivity. Five studies were included in a bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis for overall caries detection. The diagnostic odds ratio was 55.8 (95 % CI= 28.8 – 108.3), and the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (0.76 – 0.94) and 0.89 (0.75 – 0.960), respectively. Independent meta-analyses for dentin and enamel caries detection were conducted and showed sensitivities of 0.84 (0.80 – 0.87) and 0.71 (0.66 – 0.75), respectively. Despite the promising diagnostic performance of AI models, the lack of high-quality, adequately reported, and externally validated studies highlight current challenges and future research needs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51334,"journal":{"name":"Japanese Dental Science Review","volume":"60 ","pages":"Pages 128-136"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1882761624000048/pdfft?md5=2222a527d5cfc2e09b7d545509c0faa0&pid=1-s2.0-S1882761624000048-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese Dental Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1882761624000048","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The accuracy of artificial intelligence-aided (AI) caries diagnosis can vary considerably depending on numerous factors. This review aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AI models for caries detection and classification on bitewing radiographs. Publications after 2010 were screened in five databases. A customized risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool was developed and applied to the 14 articles that met the inclusion criteria out of 935 references. Dataset sizes ranged from 112 to 3686 radiographs. While 86 % of the studies reported a model with an accuracy of ≥80 %, most exhibited unclear or high risk of bias. Three studies compared the model’s diagnostic performance to dentists, in which the models consistently showed higher average sensitivity. Five studies were included in a bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis for overall caries detection. The diagnostic odds ratio was 55.8 (95 % CI= 28.8 – 108.3), and the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (0.76 – 0.94) and 0.89 (0.75 – 0.960), respectively. Independent meta-analyses for dentin and enamel caries detection were conducted and showed sensitivities of 0.84 (0.80 – 0.87) and 0.71 (0.66 – 0.75), respectively. Despite the promising diagnostic performance of AI models, the lack of high-quality, adequately reported, and externally validated studies highlight current challenges and future research needs.

人工智能辅助咬翼X光片龋病检测的诊断性能:系统回顾和荟萃分析
人工智能辅助(AI)龋齿诊断的准确性会因多种因素而有很大差异。本综述旨在评估人工智能模型在咬合X光片上进行龋齿检测和分类的诊断准确性。在五个数据库中筛选了 2010 年之后发表的文献。我们开发了一个定制的偏倚风险(RoB)评估工具,并将其应用于935篇参考文献中符合纳入标准的14篇文章。数据集的规模从 112 到 3686 张射线照片不等。虽然 86% 的研究报告了准确率≥80% 的模型,但大多数研究显示出不明确或高偏倚风险。有三项研究将模型的诊断性能与牙医进行了比较,其中模型的平均灵敏度一直较高。五项研究被纳入了整体龋齿检测的双变量诊断随机效应荟萃分析。诊断几率比为 55.8 (95 % CI= 28.8 - 108.3),灵敏度和特异度分别为 0.87 (0.76 - 0.94) 和 0.89 (0.75 - 0.960)。对牙本质龋和釉质龋的检测进行了独立荟萃分析,结果显示灵敏度分别为 0.84(0.80 - 0.87)和 0.71(0.66 - 0.75)。尽管人工智能模型的诊断性能很好,但缺乏高质量、充分报告和外部验证的研究凸显了当前的挑战和未来的研究需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Japanese Dental Science Review
Japanese Dental Science Review DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
1.50%
发文量
31
审稿时长
32 days
期刊介绍: The Japanese Dental Science Review is published by the Japanese Association for Dental Science aiming to introduce the modern aspects of the dental basic and clinical sciences in Japan, and to share and discuss the update information with foreign researchers and dentists for further development of dentistry. In principle, papers are written and submitted on the invitation of one of the Editors, although the Editors would be glad to receive suggestions. Proposals for review articles should be sent by the authors to one of the Editors by e-mail. All submitted papers are subject to the peer- refereeing process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信