Assessing the accuracy of artificial intelligence in mandibular canal segmentation compared to semi-automatic segmentation on cone-beam computed tomography images.
Julien Issa, Marta Dyszkiewicz Konwinska, Natalia Kazimierczak, Raphael Olszewski
{"title":"Assessing the accuracy of artificial intelligence in mandibular canal segmentation compared to semi-automatic segmentation on cone-beam computed tomography images.","authors":"Julien Issa, Marta Dyszkiewicz Konwinska, Natalia Kazimierczak, Raphael Olszewski","doi":"10.5114/pjr/202477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to assess the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) in mandibular canal (MC) segmentation on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) compared to semi-automatic segmentation. The impact of third molar status (absent, erupted, impacted) on AI performance was also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 150 CBCT scans (300 MCs) were retrospectively analysed. Semi-automatic MC segmentation was performed by experts using Romexis software, serving as the reference standard. AI-based segmentation was conducted using Diagnocat, an AI-driven cloud-based platform. Three-dimensional segmentation accuracy was assessed by comparing AI and semi-automatic segmentations through surface-to-surface distance metrics in Cloud Compare software. Statistical analyses included the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter- and intra-rater reliability, Kruskal-Wallis tests for group comparisons, and Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> tests for post-hoc analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median deviation between AI and semi-automatic MC segmentation was 0.29 mm (SD: 0.25-0.37 mm), with 88% of cases within the clinically acceptable limit (≤ 0.50 mm). Inter-rater reliability for semi-automatic segmentation was 84.5%, while intra-rater reliability reached 95.5%. AI segmentation demonstrated the highest accuracy in scans without third molars (median deviation: 0.27 mm), followed by erupted third molars (0.28 mm) and impacted third molars (0.32 mm).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI demonstrated high accuracy in MC segmentation, closely matching expert-guided semi-automatic segmentation. However, segmentation errors were more frequent in cases with impacted third molars, probably due to anatomical complexity. Further optimisation of AI models using diverse training datasets and multi-centre validation is recommended to enhance reliability in complex cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":94174,"journal":{"name":"Polish journal of radiology","volume":"90 ","pages":"e172-e179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12099203/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish journal of radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr/202477","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to assess the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) in mandibular canal (MC) segmentation on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) compared to semi-automatic segmentation. The impact of third molar status (absent, erupted, impacted) on AI performance was also evaluated.
Material and methods: A total of 150 CBCT scans (300 MCs) were retrospectively analysed. Semi-automatic MC segmentation was performed by experts using Romexis software, serving as the reference standard. AI-based segmentation was conducted using Diagnocat, an AI-driven cloud-based platform. Three-dimensional segmentation accuracy was assessed by comparing AI and semi-automatic segmentations through surface-to-surface distance metrics in Cloud Compare software. Statistical analyses included the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter- and intra-rater reliability, Kruskal-Wallis tests for group comparisons, and Mann-Whitney U tests for post-hoc analyses.
Results: The median deviation between AI and semi-automatic MC segmentation was 0.29 mm (SD: 0.25-0.37 mm), with 88% of cases within the clinically acceptable limit (≤ 0.50 mm). Inter-rater reliability for semi-automatic segmentation was 84.5%, while intra-rater reliability reached 95.5%. AI segmentation demonstrated the highest accuracy in scans without third molars (median deviation: 0.27 mm), followed by erupted third molars (0.28 mm) and impacted third molars (0.32 mm).
Conclusions: AI demonstrated high accuracy in MC segmentation, closely matching expert-guided semi-automatic segmentation. However, segmentation errors were more frequent in cases with impacted third molars, probably due to anatomical complexity. Further optimisation of AI models using diverse training datasets and multi-centre validation is recommended to enhance reliability in complex cases.