Machine Learning Algorithms Enhance the Accuracy of Radiographic Diagnosis of Dental Caries: A Comparative Study.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Shwetha Hegde, Jinlong Gao, Stephen Cox, Shanika Nanayakkara, Rena Logothetis, Rajesh Vasa
{"title":"Machine Learning Algorithms Enhance the Accuracy of Radiographic Diagnosis of Dental Caries: A Comparative Study.","authors":"Shwetha Hegde, Jinlong Gao, Stephen Cox, Shanika Nanayakkara, Rena Logothetis, Rajesh Vasa","doi":"10.1093/dmfr/twaf053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study evaluated the influence of cognitive aids, including machine learning (ML) algorithms and checklists, on the diagnostic accuracy and confidence of dental students in detecting dental caries on bitewing radiographs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty-two third-year dental students were randomly assigned to control, ML, or checklist groups. The participants recorded their caries diagnoses (charting) on ten bitewing radiographs and rated their confidence. Diagnostic accuracy and reliability were compared between groups for caries detection (present/absent). The inter-rater reliability for International Caries Detection and Assessment System II (ICDAS II) caries grading was assessed using weighted kappa. Participants also completed questionnaires on their perceptions of cognitive aids.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ML group showed the highest diagnostic accuracy and confidence levels. For caries detection, the ML group achieved the highest sensitivity (79%) and diagnostic odds ratio (20.3), while the checklist group had the highest specificity (90.9%). The control group showed moderate sensitivity (67.9%) but outperformed the checklist group in this metric. Interrater agreement for caries detection was highest in the ML group (κ = 0.702, 95% CI:0.692-0.713; p < 0.001), followed by the checklist group. The ML group also had the highest weighted kappa for ICDAS II grading (κ = 0.520, p < 0.001). Confidence levels differed significantly between groups (p < 0.001), with the ML group reporting highest confidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ML algorithms enhance diagnostic accuracy and confidence, possibly by reducing cognitive load. While standardising the diagnostic process, checklists were less effective, likely due to their lack of flexibility and clinical context. Further research is needed to better understand our findings and translate them into clinical workflows.</p>","PeriodicalId":11261,"journal":{"name":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dmfr/twaf053","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

Objectives: This study evaluated the influence of cognitive aids, including machine learning (ML) algorithms and checklists, on the diagnostic accuracy and confidence of dental students in detecting dental caries on bitewing radiographs.

Methods: Fifty-two third-year dental students were randomly assigned to control, ML, or checklist groups. The participants recorded their caries diagnoses (charting) on ten bitewing radiographs and rated their confidence. Diagnostic accuracy and reliability were compared between groups for caries detection (present/absent). The inter-rater reliability for International Caries Detection and Assessment System II (ICDAS II) caries grading was assessed using weighted kappa. Participants also completed questionnaires on their perceptions of cognitive aids.

Results: ML group showed the highest diagnostic accuracy and confidence levels. For caries detection, the ML group achieved the highest sensitivity (79%) and diagnostic odds ratio (20.3), while the checklist group had the highest specificity (90.9%). The control group showed moderate sensitivity (67.9%) but outperformed the checklist group in this metric. Interrater agreement for caries detection was highest in the ML group (κ = 0.702, 95% CI:0.692-0.713; p < 0.001), followed by the checklist group. The ML group also had the highest weighted kappa for ICDAS II grading (κ = 0.520, p < 0.001). Confidence levels differed significantly between groups (p < 0.001), with the ML group reporting highest confidence.

Conclusions: ML algorithms enhance diagnostic accuracy and confidence, possibly by reducing cognitive load. While standardising the diagnostic process, checklists were less effective, likely due to their lack of flexibility and clinical context. Further research is needed to better understand our findings and translate them into clinical workflows.

机器学习算法提高龋齿放射诊断的准确性:一项比较研究。
目的:本研究评估认知辅助工具(包括机器学习算法和检查表)对牙科学生在咬牙x线片上检测龋齿的诊断准确性和信心的影响。方法:52名三年级牙科学生随机分为对照组、ML组和检查组。参与者在十张咬牙x光片上记录了他们的龋齿诊断(图表),并对他们的信心进行了评分。比较两组龋检测(存在/不存在)的诊断准确性和可靠性。采用加权卡帕法对国际龋齿检测和评估系统II (ICDAS II)龋齿分级的评分者间可靠性进行评估。参与者还完成了关于他们对认知辅助工具的看法的问卷调查。结果:ML组诊断准确率和置信度最高。对于龋齿的检测,ML组具有最高的灵敏度(79%)和诊断优势比(20.3),而检查表组具有最高的特异性(90.9%)。对照组表现出中度敏感性(67.9%),但在这个指标上优于检查表组。ML组的龋检一致性最高(κ = 0.702, 95% CI:0.692-0.713;结论:ML算法可能通过减少认知负荷来提高诊断的准确性和信心。在标准化诊断过程的同时,检查清单的效果较差,可能是由于它们缺乏灵活性和临床背景。需要进一步的研究来更好地理解我们的发现并将其转化为临床工作流程。
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
5.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
65
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (DMFR) is the journal of the International Association of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (IADMFR) and covers the closely related fields of oral radiology and head and neck imaging. Established in 1972, DMFR is a key resource keeping dentists, radiologists and clinicians and scientists with an interest in Head and Neck imaging abreast of important research and developments in oral and maxillofacial radiology. The DMFR editorial board features a panel of international experts including Editor-in-Chief Professor Ralf Schulze. Our editorial board provide their expertise and guidance in shaping the content and direction of the journal. Quick Facts: - 2015 Impact Factor - 1.919 - Receipt to first decision - average of 3 weeks - Acceptance to online publication - average of 3 weeks - Open access option - ISSN: 0250-832X - eISSN: 1476-542X
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信