Assessment of landmark detection in cephalometric radiographs with different conditions of brightness and contrast using the an artificial intelligence software.
Liciane Dos Santos Menezes, Thaísa Pinheiro Silva, Marcos Antônio Lima Dos Santos, Mariana Mendonça Hughes, Saulo Dos Reis Mariano Souza, Patrícia Miranda Leite Ribeiro, Paulo Henrique Luiz de Freitas, Wilton Mitsunari Takeshita
{"title":"Assessment of landmark detection in cephalometric radiographs with different conditions of brightness and contrast using the an artificial intelligence software.","authors":"Liciane Dos Santos Menezes, Thaísa Pinheiro Silva, Marcos Antônio Lima Dos Santos, Mariana Mendonça Hughes, Saulo Dos Reis Mariano Souza, Patrícia Miranda Leite Ribeiro, Paulo Henrique Luiz de Freitas, Wilton Mitsunari Takeshita","doi":"10.1259/dmfr.20230065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of an artificial intelligence (AI) software in identifying cephalometric points on lateral cephalometric radiographs considering four settings of brightness and contrast.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>Brightness and contrast of 30 lateral cephalometric radiographs were adjusted into four different settings. Then, the control examiner (ECont), the calibrated examiner (ECal), and the CEFBOT AI software (AIs) each marked 19 cephalometric points on all radiographs. Reliability was assessed with a second analysis of the radiographs 15 days after the first one. Statistical significance was set at <i>p</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Reliability of landmark identification was excellent for the human examiners and the AIs regardless of the type of brightness and contrast setting (mean intraclass correlation coefficient >0.89). When ECont and ECal were compared for reproducibility, there were more cephalometric points with significant differences on the x-axis of the image with the highest contrast and the lowest brightness, namely N(<i>p</i> = 0.033), S(<i>p</i> = 0.030), Po(<i>p</i> < 0.001), and Pog'(<i>p</i> = 0.012). Between ECont and AIs, there were more cephalometric points with significant differences on the image with the highest contrast and the lowest brightness, namely N(<i>p</i> = 0.034), Or(<i>p</i> = 0.048), Po(<i>p</i> < 0.001), A(<i>p</i> = 0.042), Pog'(<i>p</i> = 0.004), Ll(<i>p</i> = 0.005), Ul(<i>p</i> < 0.001), and Sn(<i>p</i> = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While the reliability of the AIs for cephalometric landmark identification was rated as excellent, low brightness and high contrast seemed to affect its reproducibility. The experienced human examiner, on the other hand, did not show such faulty reproducibility; therefore, the AIs used in this study is an excellent auxiliary tool for cephalometric analysis, but still depends on human supervision to be clinically reliable.</p>","PeriodicalId":11261,"journal":{"name":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","volume":" ","pages":"20230065"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10968755/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20230065","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of an artificial intelligence (AI) software in identifying cephalometric points on lateral cephalometric radiographs considering four settings of brightness and contrast.
Methods and materials: Brightness and contrast of 30 lateral cephalometric radiographs were adjusted into four different settings. Then, the control examiner (ECont), the calibrated examiner (ECal), and the CEFBOT AI software (AIs) each marked 19 cephalometric points on all radiographs. Reliability was assessed with a second analysis of the radiographs 15 days after the first one. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
Results: Reliability of landmark identification was excellent for the human examiners and the AIs regardless of the type of brightness and contrast setting (mean intraclass correlation coefficient >0.89). When ECont and ECal were compared for reproducibility, there were more cephalometric points with significant differences on the x-axis of the image with the highest contrast and the lowest brightness, namely N(p = 0.033), S(p = 0.030), Po(p < 0.001), and Pog'(p = 0.012). Between ECont and AIs, there were more cephalometric points with significant differences on the image with the highest contrast and the lowest brightness, namely N(p = 0.034), Or(p = 0.048), Po(p < 0.001), A(p = 0.042), Pog'(p = 0.004), Ll(p = 0.005), Ul(p < 0.001), and Sn(p = 0.001).
Conclusions: While the reliability of the AIs for cephalometric landmark identification was rated as excellent, low brightness and high contrast seemed to affect its reproducibility. The experienced human examiner, on the other hand, did not show such faulty reproducibility; therefore, the AIs used in this study is an excellent auxiliary tool for cephalometric analysis, but still depends on human supervision to be clinically reliable.
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