Assessing the accuracy of artificial intelligence in mandibular canal segmentation compared to semi-automatic segmentation on cone-beam computed tomography images.

Polish journal of radiology Pub Date : 2025-04-10 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.5114/pjr/202477
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.

评估人工智能在下颌管分割与半自动分割的准确性。
目的:本研究旨在评估人工智能(AI)在锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)下颌管(MC)分割中与半自动分割的准确性。还评估了第三磨牙状态(缺失、爆发、影响)对人工智能性能的影响。材料和方法:回顾性分析共150个CBCT扫描(300个MCs)。由专家使用Romexis软件进行半自动MC分割,作为参考标准。使用人工智能驱动的云平台Diagnocat进行人工智能分割。通过Cloud Compare软件中的地对地距离度量,比较人工智能和半自动分割的三维分割精度。统计分析包括用类内相关系数(ICC)表示组间和组内信度,用Kruskal-Wallis检验表示组间比较,用Mann-Whitney U检验表示事后分析。结果:人工智能与半自动MC分割的中位偏差为0.29 mm (SD: 0.25 ~ 0.37 mm), 88%的病例在临床可接受范围内(≤0.50 mm)。半自动分割的评分间信度为84.5%,评分内信度为95.5%。人工智能分割在没有第三磨牙的扫描中显示出最高的准确性(中位数偏差:0.27 mm),其次是爆发的第三磨牙(0.28 mm)和阻生的第三磨牙(0.32 mm)。结论:人工智能在MC分割中具有较高的准确率,与专家引导的半自动分割非常接近。然而,可能由于第三磨牙的解剖复杂性,第三磨牙的分割错误更常见。建议使用不同的训练数据集和多中心验证进一步优化人工智能模型,以提高复杂情况下的可靠性。
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
CiteScore
2.10
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