Reproducibility of AI in Cephalometric Landmark Detection: A Preliminary Study.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
David Emilio Fracchia, Denis Bignotti, Stefano Lai, Stefano Cubeddu, Fabio Curreli, Massimiliano Lombardo, Alessio Verdecchia, Enrico Spinas
{"title":"Reproducibility of AI in Cephalometric Landmark Detection: A Preliminary Study.","authors":"David Emilio Fracchia, Denis Bignotti, Stefano Lai, Stefano Cubeddu, Fabio Curreli, Massimiliano Lombardo, Alessio Verdecchia, Enrico Spinas","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics15192521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives</b>: This study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of artificial intelligence (AI) in identifying cephalometric landmarks, comparing its performance with manual tracing by an experienced orthodontist. <b>Methods</b>: A high-quality lateral cephalogram of a 26-year-old female patient, meeting strict inclusion criteria, was selected. Eighteen cephalometric landmarks were identified using the WebCeph software (version 1500) in three experimental settings: AI tracing without image modification (AInocut), AI tracing with image modification (AI-cut), and manual tracing by an orthodontic expert. Each evaluator repeated the procedure 10 times on the same image. X and Y coordinates were recorded, and reproducibility was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV) and centroid distance analysis. Statistical comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests, with significance set at <i>p</i> < 0.05. <b>Results</b>: AInocut achieved the highest reproducibility, showing the lowest mean CV values. Both AI methods demonstrated greater consistency than manual tracing, particularly for landmarks such as Menton (Me) and Pogonion (Pog). Gonion (Go) showed the highest variability across all groups. Significant differences were found for the Posterior Nasal Spine (PNS) point (<i>p</i> = 0.001), where AI outperformed manual tracing. Variability was generally higher along the X-axis than the Y-axis. <b>Conclusions</b>: AI demonstrated superior reproducibility in cephalometric landmark identification compared to manual tracing by an experienced operator. While certain points showed high consistency, others-particularly PNS and Go-remained challenging. These findings support AI as a reliable adjunct in digital cephalometry, although the use of a single radiograph limits generalizability. Broader, multi-image studies are needed to confirm clinical applicability.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"15 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12523740/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15192521","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of artificial intelligence (AI) in identifying cephalometric landmarks, comparing its performance with manual tracing by an experienced orthodontist. Methods: A high-quality lateral cephalogram of a 26-year-old female patient, meeting strict inclusion criteria, was selected. Eighteen cephalometric landmarks were identified using the WebCeph software (version 1500) in three experimental settings: AI tracing without image modification (AInocut), AI tracing with image modification (AI-cut), and manual tracing by an orthodontic expert. Each evaluator repeated the procedure 10 times on the same image. X and Y coordinates were recorded, and reproducibility was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV) and centroid distance analysis. Statistical comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: AInocut achieved the highest reproducibility, showing the lowest mean CV values. Both AI methods demonstrated greater consistency than manual tracing, particularly for landmarks such as Menton (Me) and Pogonion (Pog). Gonion (Go) showed the highest variability across all groups. Significant differences were found for the Posterior Nasal Spine (PNS) point (p = 0.001), where AI outperformed manual tracing. Variability was generally higher along the X-axis than the Y-axis. Conclusions: AI demonstrated superior reproducibility in cephalometric landmark identification compared to manual tracing by an experienced operator. While certain points showed high consistency, others-particularly PNS and Go-remained challenging. These findings support AI as a reliable adjunct in digital cephalometry, although the use of a single radiograph limits generalizability. Broader, multi-image studies are needed to confirm clinical applicability.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

人工智能在头颅测量地标检测中的可重复性:初步研究。
目的:本研究旨在评估人工智能(AI)识别头侧标志的可重复性,并将其与经验丰富的正畸医生手工追踪的性能进行比较。方法:选择一名符合严格入选标准的26岁女性患者的高质量侧位脑电图。使用WebCeph软件(版本1500)在三种实验设置中识别出18个头测地标:不修改图像的人工智能追踪(AInocut)、图像修改的人工智能追踪(AI-cut)和由正畸专家手动追踪。每个评估者在同一幅图像上重复该过程10次。记录X和Y坐标,并使用变异系数(CV)和质心距离分析评估再现性。统计学比较采用单因素方差分析和Bonferroni事后检验,显著性设置为p < 0.05。结果:AInocut重复性最高,平均CV值最低。这两种AI方法都比手动追踪显示出更高的一致性,特别是对于像Menton (Me)和Pogonion (Pog)这样的地标。Gonion (Go)在所有组中表现出最高的变异性。在鼻后棘(PNS)点上发现显著差异(p = 0.001),人工智能优于人工追踪。x轴的变异性一般高于y轴。结论:与经验丰富的操作人员手工追踪相比,人工智能在头测地标识别方面表现出更高的可重复性。虽然某些点表现出很高的一致性,但其他点——尤其是PNS和围棋——仍然具有挑战性。这些发现支持人工智能作为数字头测术的可靠辅助手段,尽管单张x线片的使用限制了其普遍性。需要更广泛的多图像研究来证实其临床适用性。
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
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
×
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