Artificial Intelligence Models for Diagnosis of Periodontitis Using Non-Invasive Biological Markers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient-Based Studies.

IF 4.4 Q1 Medicine
Carlos M Ardila, Anny M Vivares-Builes, Pradeep Kumar Yadalam
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence Models for Diagnosis of Periodontitis Using Non-Invasive Biological Markers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient-Based Studies.","authors":"Carlos M Ardila, Anny M Vivares-Builes, Pradeep Kumar Yadalam","doi":"10.3390/medsci13030159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Early diagnosis of periodontitis remains challenging using traditional clinical methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) models trained on non-invasive or minimally invasive biomarkers-including saliva, gingival crevicular fluid (GCF), and immunologic profiles-for diagnosing and classifying periodontitis in human subjects. <b>Methods</b>: A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted from database inception to June 2025. Eligible studies used AI or machine learning models with patient-derived biomarker data and reported diagnostic performance metrics. <b>Results</b>: Seven studies were included, employing various AI models such as random forest, artificial neural networks, and gradient boosting. Biomarkers were derived from saliva (n = 4), saliva-derived biomarkers from oral rinse (n = 1), immunologic profiles (n = 1), and tissue-based gene expression (n = 1). Reported area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) ranged from 0.83 to 0.96. Meta-analysis of studies with comparable outcomes showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.84-0.93), a specificity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.80-0.92), and a summary AUC of 0.92. Subgroup analysis revealed that models using salivary biomarkers achieved a higher pooled AUC (0.94) than those using GCF or immunologic markers (AUC: 0.89). Sensitivity analyses excluding studies with unclear bias did not significantly alter pooled estimates, affirming robustness. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as moderate to high. <b>Conclusions</b>: AI-based diagnostic models utilizing salivary, microbiome, or immunologic biomarkers demonstrated quantitatively high accuracy; however, the overall certainty of evidence was rated as moderate to high due to limitations in study design and validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":74152,"journal":{"name":"Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":"13 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12452651/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci13030159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Early diagnosis of periodontitis remains challenging using traditional clinical methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) models trained on non-invasive or minimally invasive biomarkers-including saliva, gingival crevicular fluid (GCF), and immunologic profiles-for diagnosing and classifying periodontitis in human subjects. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted from database inception to June 2025. Eligible studies used AI or machine learning models with patient-derived biomarker data and reported diagnostic performance metrics. Results: Seven studies were included, employing various AI models such as random forest, artificial neural networks, and gradient boosting. Biomarkers were derived from saliva (n = 4), saliva-derived biomarkers from oral rinse (n = 1), immunologic profiles (n = 1), and tissue-based gene expression (n = 1). Reported area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) ranged from 0.83 to 0.96. Meta-analysis of studies with comparable outcomes showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.84-0.93), a specificity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.80-0.92), and a summary AUC of 0.92. Subgroup analysis revealed that models using salivary biomarkers achieved a higher pooled AUC (0.94) than those using GCF or immunologic markers (AUC: 0.89). Sensitivity analyses excluding studies with unclear bias did not significantly alter pooled estimates, affirming robustness. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as moderate to high. Conclusions: AI-based diagnostic models utilizing salivary, microbiome, or immunologic biomarkers demonstrated quantitatively high accuracy; however, the overall certainty of evidence was rated as moderate to high due to limitations in study design and validation.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

使用无创生物标志物诊断牙周炎的人工智能模型:基于患者研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景/目的:使用传统的临床方法进行牙周炎的早期诊断仍然具有挑战性。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了人工智能(AI)模型在非侵入性或微创性生物标志物(包括唾液、龈沟液(GCF)和免疫谱)上的诊断准确性,用于诊断和分类人类受试者的牙周炎。方法:综合检索PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science、EMBASE和Cochrane CENTRAL数据库,检索时间为数据库建立至2025年6月。合格的研究使用人工智能或机器学习模型与患者衍生的生物标志物数据和报告的诊断性能指标。结果:共纳入7项研究,采用随机森林、人工神经网络、梯度增强等多种人工智能模型。生物标志物来自唾液(n = 4),唾液来源的生物标志物来自口腔冲洗液(n = 1),免疫谱(n = 1)和基于组织的基因表达(n = 1)。报告的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)范围为0.83 ~ 0.96。具有可比结果的研究荟萃分析显示,合并敏感性为0.89 (95% CI: 0.84-0.93),特异性为0.87 (95% CI: 0.80-0.92),总AUC为0.92。亚组分析显示,使用唾液生物标志物的模型的综合AUC(0.94)高于使用GCF或免疫标志物的模型(AUC: 0.89)。排除不明确偏倚研究的敏感性分析没有显著改变汇总估计,证实了稳健性。证据的总体确定性被评为中等到高。结论:利用唾液、微生物组或免疫生物标志物的基于人工智能的诊断模型在定量上具有较高的准确性;然而,由于研究设计和验证的局限性,证据的总体确定性被评为中等至高。
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
9.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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