{"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.
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