Comparison of individualized facial growth prediction models using artificial intelligence and partial least squares based on the Mathews growth collection.

Jeffrey Roseth, Jong-Hak Kim, Jun-Ho Moon, Dong-Yub Ko, Heesoo Oh, Shin-Jae Lee, Heeyeon Suh
{"title":"Comparison of individualized facial growth prediction models using artificial intelligence and partial least squares based on the Mathews growth collection.","authors":"Jeffrey Roseth, Jong-Hak Kim, Jun-Ho Moon, Dong-Yub Ko, Heesoo Oh, Shin-Jae Lee, Heeyeon Suh","doi":"10.2319/082124-687.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To develop facial growth prediction models using artificial intelligence (AI) under various conditions, and to compare performance of these models with each other as well as with the partial least squares (PLS) growth prediction model.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Longitudinal lateral cephalograms from 33 subjects in the Mathews growth collection were utilized. A total of 1257 pairs of before and after growth lateral cephalograms were included. In each image, 46 hard and 32 soft tissue landmarks were manually identified. Growth prediction models were constructed using a deep learning method based on TabNet deep neural network and partial least squares (PLS) method. Prediction accuracies of the two methods were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On average, artificial intelligence (AI) showed 0.61 mm less prediction error than PLS. Among the 77 predicted landmarks, AI was more accurate than PLS in 60 landmarks. When comparing AI models with varying numbers of training epochs, those with higher epochs yielded more accurate predictions. Overall, PLS and AI exhibited greater prediction errors for soft tissue and mandibular landmarks compared to hard tissue and maxillary landmarks. However, AI showed a smaller increase in prediction error in areas with greater variability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI proved to be a valuable growth prediction method, with clinically acceptable prediction errors averaging 1.49 mm for 45 hard tissue landmarks and 1.71 mm for 32 soft tissue landmarks. PLS accurately predicted landmarks with low variability. However, AI generally outperformed PLS, particularly for landmarks in the lower part of the craniofacial structure and soft tissue, where uncertainty is considerable.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/082124-687.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To develop facial growth prediction models using artificial intelligence (AI) under various conditions, and to compare performance of these models with each other as well as with the partial least squares (PLS) growth prediction model.

Materials and methods: Longitudinal lateral cephalograms from 33 subjects in the Mathews growth collection were utilized. A total of 1257 pairs of before and after growth lateral cephalograms were included. In each image, 46 hard and 32 soft tissue landmarks were manually identified. Growth prediction models were constructed using a deep learning method based on TabNet deep neural network and partial least squares (PLS) method. Prediction accuracies of the two methods were compared.

Results: On average, artificial intelligence (AI) showed 0.61 mm less prediction error than PLS. Among the 77 predicted landmarks, AI was more accurate than PLS in 60 landmarks. When comparing AI models with varying numbers of training epochs, those with higher epochs yielded more accurate predictions. Overall, PLS and AI exhibited greater prediction errors for soft tissue and mandibular landmarks compared to hard tissue and maxillary landmarks. However, AI showed a smaller increase in prediction error in areas with greater variability.

Conclusions: AI proved to be a valuable growth prediction method, with clinically acceptable prediction errors averaging 1.49 mm for 45 hard tissue landmarks and 1.71 mm for 32 soft tissue landmarks. PLS accurately predicted landmarks with low variability. However, AI generally outperformed PLS, particularly for landmarks in the lower part of the craniofacial structure and soft tissue, where uncertainty is considerable.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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