Side- and patient-based performance of a deep learning system based on the results of individual detection of carotid artery calcifications on panoramic radiographs.
{"title":"Side- and patient-based performance of a deep learning system based on the results of individual detection of carotid artery calcifications on panoramic radiographs.","authors":"Yuta Mitsuya, Chiaki Kuwada, Sujin Yang, Yoshitaka Kise, Mizuho Mori, Yukiko Takashi, Masako Nishiyama, Natsuho Ishikawa, Munetaka Naitoh, Eiichiro Ariji","doi":"10.5624/isd.20250232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The present study aimed to develop 2 deep learning (DL) systems incorporating detection functions for the diagnosis of carotid artery calcifications (CACs) on panoramic radiographs and to compare their diagnostic performances using CAC-based, side-based, and patient-based evaluations.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Panoramic radiographs from 290 patients with CACs and 290 control patients without CACs were used to develop 2 detection models: one designed to detect individual CACs across the entire radiograph (System 1) and another designed to detect CACs within the limited bilateral cervical areas (System 2). CAC-based performance was evaluated using recall, precision, and F1-score. Side-based and patient-based performances were assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For System 1, CAC-based recall, precision, and F1-score were 0.81, 0.68, and 0.74, respectively. For System 2, the corresponding values were 0.90, 0.67, and 0.77. Side-based sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.87, 0.80, and 0.83 for System 1, and 0.93, 0.84, and 0.89 for System 2. Patient-based sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.93, 0.73, and 0.83 for System 1, and 0.95, 0.70, and 0.83 for System 2. Although a relatively large number of false positives were observed in CAC-based assessments, side-based and patient-based performances showed improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Side-based and patient-based performances were sufficient when calculated on the basis of CAC-based evaluations for diagnosing CACs on panoramic radiographs. When conducting studies of this type, performance assessments should include side-based and patient-based evaluations in addition to CAC-based analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":51714,"journal":{"name":"Imaging Science in Dentistry","volume":"56 1","pages":"83-92"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13040223/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Imaging Science in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20250232","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The present study aimed to develop 2 deep learning (DL) systems incorporating detection functions for the diagnosis of carotid artery calcifications (CACs) on panoramic radiographs and to compare their diagnostic performances using CAC-based, side-based, and patient-based evaluations.
Materials and methods: Panoramic radiographs from 290 patients with CACs and 290 control patients without CACs were used to develop 2 detection models: one designed to detect individual CACs across the entire radiograph (System 1) and another designed to detect CACs within the limited bilateral cervical areas (System 2). CAC-based performance was evaluated using recall, precision, and F1-score. Side-based and patient-based performances were assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
Results: For System 1, CAC-based recall, precision, and F1-score were 0.81, 0.68, and 0.74, respectively. For System 2, the corresponding values were 0.90, 0.67, and 0.77. Side-based sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.87, 0.80, and 0.83 for System 1, and 0.93, 0.84, and 0.89 for System 2. Patient-based sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.93, 0.73, and 0.83 for System 1, and 0.95, 0.70, and 0.83 for System 2. Although a relatively large number of false positives were observed in CAC-based assessments, side-based and patient-based performances showed improvement.
Conclusion: Side-based and patient-based performances were sufficient when calculated on the basis of CAC-based evaluations for diagnosing CACs on panoramic radiographs. When conducting studies of this type, performance assessments should include side-based and patient-based evaluations in addition to CAC-based analyses.