Reproducibility of Mandibular Cortical Index Classification Among Dental Examiners and a Single Generative AI Platform: An Observer Agreement Study.

IF 2.8 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Keisuke Seki, Minori Kashima, Taiki Akiyama, Atsushi Kobayashi, Ko Dezawa, Yoshimasa Takeuchi, Mika Furuchi, Atsushi Kamimoto
{"title":"Reproducibility of Mandibular Cortical Index Classification Among Dental Examiners and a Single Generative AI Platform: An Observer Agreement Study.","authors":"Keisuke Seki, Minori Kashima, Taiki Akiyama, Atsushi Kobayashi, Ko Dezawa, Yoshimasa Takeuchi, Mika Furuchi, Atsushi Kamimoto","doi":"10.3390/clinpract16080142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives:</b> The mandibular cortical index (MCI) is a valuable screening tool for osteoporosis on dental panoramic radiographs, but its assessment is subject to inter-examiner variability. This study evaluated the reproducibility and inter-rater agreement of MCI classification by a closed-source generative AI tool (NotebookLM, Google) compared with eight dentists of varying clinical experience. <b>Methods:</b> One hundred panoramic radiographs were classified according to the three-category MCI in two sessions held at least two weeks apart. Intra-examiner reliability, inter-examiner agreement, and agreement with a reference radiologist were assessed using linearly weighted kappa coefficients. The study was designed as a descriptive reliability study rather than a formal equivalence trial. <b>Results:</b> The intra-examiner reliability of the AI was exceptionally high (κ = 0.987). However, agreement between the AI and the dentists remained at \"slight agreement\" or lower (κ < 0.2) for every pairing, with 95% confidence intervals that included zero; no formal global hypothesis test was performed, and these individual interval estimates should not be interpreted as proof of the absence of agreement beyond chance. A \"two-level discrepancy,\" in which the AI interchanged Class 1 (normal) and Class 3 (severe), occurred in 10-18% of cases. The dentists showed a possible learning effect, with inter-examiner agreement improving between sessions. <b>Conclusions:</b> Despite the high reproducibility of the NotebookLM configuration evaluated in this study, agreement with the dentists remained at \"slight\" or lower (κ < 0.2) in MCI classification. As classifications were not validated against bone mineral density or an adjudicated reference standard, these findings concern reproducibility and agreement rather than diagnostic or screening performance and characterize a single LLM-based platform rather than generative AI in general.</p>","PeriodicalId":45306,"journal":{"name":"Clinics and Practice","volume":"16 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13511330/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract16080142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The mandibular cortical index (MCI) is a valuable screening tool for osteoporosis on dental panoramic radiographs, but its assessment is subject to inter-examiner variability. This study evaluated the reproducibility and inter-rater agreement of MCI classification by a closed-source generative AI tool (NotebookLM, Google) compared with eight dentists of varying clinical experience. Methods: One hundred panoramic radiographs were classified according to the three-category MCI in two sessions held at least two weeks apart. Intra-examiner reliability, inter-examiner agreement, and agreement with a reference radiologist were assessed using linearly weighted kappa coefficients. The study was designed as a descriptive reliability study rather than a formal equivalence trial. Results: The intra-examiner reliability of the AI was exceptionally high (κ = 0.987). However, agreement between the AI and the dentists remained at "slight agreement" or lower (κ < 0.2) for every pairing, with 95% confidence intervals that included zero; no formal global hypothesis test was performed, and these individual interval estimates should not be interpreted as proof of the absence of agreement beyond chance. A "two-level discrepancy," in which the AI interchanged Class 1 (normal) and Class 3 (severe), occurred in 10-18% of cases. The dentists showed a possible learning effect, with inter-examiner agreement improving between sessions. Conclusions: Despite the high reproducibility of the NotebookLM configuration evaluated in this study, agreement with the dentists remained at "slight" or lower (κ < 0.2) in MCI classification. As classifications were not validated against bone mineral density or an adjudicated reference standard, these findings concern reproducibility and agreement rather than diagnostic or screening performance and characterize a single LLM-based platform rather than generative AI in general.

下颌皮质指数分类在牙科检查人员和单一生成人工智能平台中的可重复性:一项观察者协议研究。
背景/目的:下颌皮质指数(MCI)是一种有价值的骨质疏松症牙科全景x线片筛查工具,但其评估受制于检查者之间的差异。本研究通过闭源生成人工智能工具(NotebookLM,谷歌)评估MCI分类的可重复性和内部一致性,并与8名不同临床经验的牙医进行比较。方法:将100张全景x线片按照MCI的三种分类,在间隔至少两周的两次拍摄中进行分类。使用线性加权kappa系数评估审查员内部的可靠性、审查员之间的一致性以及与参考放射科医生的一致性。本研究设计为描述性可靠性研究,而不是正式的等效性试验。结果:人工智能的内部信度异常高(κ = 0.987)。然而,人工智能和牙医之间的一致性在每对配对中保持在“轻微一致”或更低(κ < 0.2), 95%置信区间包括零;没有进行正式的全局假设检验,这些单独的区间估计不应被解释为缺乏偶然之外的一致性的证据。AI在1级(正常)和3级(严重)之间互换的“两级差异”发生在10-18%的病例中。牙医们表现出了一种可能的学习效应,在两次检查之间,考官之间的一致性得到了提高。结论:尽管本研究中评估的NotebookLM配置具有很高的再现性,但在MCI分类中,与牙医的一致性仍然是“轻微”或更低(κ < 0.2)。由于分类没有根据骨矿物质密度或已确定的参考标准进行验证,因此这些发现关注的是可重复性和一致性,而不是诊断或筛选性能,并且表征了单个基于llm的平台,而不是一般的生成式人工智能。
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
Clinics and Practice
Clinics and Practice MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
91
审稿时长
10 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
小红书