头颅测量标志检测中的人工检查和人工智能--人工智能准备好了吗?

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Dento maxillo facial radiology Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-03 DOI:10.1259/dmfr.20220362
Suvarna Indermun, Shoayeb Shaik, Clement Nyirenda, Keith Johannes, Riaan Mulder
{"title":"头颅测量标志检测中的人工检查和人工智能--人工智能准备好了吗?","authors":"Suvarna Indermun, Shoayeb Shaik, Clement Nyirenda, Keith Johannes, Riaan Mulder","doi":"10.1259/dmfr.20220362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the precision of two cephalometric landmark identification methods, namely a computer-assisted human examination software and an artificial intelligence program, based on South African data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective quantitative cross-sectional analytical study utilized a data set consisting of 409 cephalograms obtained from a South African population. 19 landmarks were identified in each of the 409 cephalograms by the primary researcher using the two programs [(409 cephalograms x 19 landmarks) x 2 methods = 15,542 landmarks)]. Each landmark generated two coordinate values (<i>x, y</i>), making a total of 31,084 landmarks. Euclidean distances between corresponding pairs of observations was calculated. Precision was determined by using the standard deviation and standard error of the mean.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary researcher acted as the gold-standard and was calibrated prior to data collection. The inter- and intrareliability tests yielded acceptable results. Variations were present in several landmarks between the two approaches; however, they were statistically insignificant. The computer-assisted examination software was very sensitive to several variables. Several incidental findings were also discovered. Attempts were made to draw valid comparisons and conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference between the two programs regarding the precision of landmark detection. The present study provides a basis to: (1) support the use of automatic landmark detection to be within the range of computer-assisted examination software and (2) determine the learning data required to develop AI systems within an African context.</p>","PeriodicalId":11261,"journal":{"name":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10461256/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human examination and artificial intelligence in cephalometric landmark detection-is AI ready to take over?\",\"authors\":\"Suvarna Indermun, Shoayeb Shaik, Clement Nyirenda, Keith Johannes, Riaan Mulder\",\"doi\":\"10.1259/dmfr.20220362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the precision of two cephalometric landmark identification methods, namely a computer-assisted human examination software and an artificial intelligence program, based on South African data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective quantitative cross-sectional analytical study utilized a data set consisting of 409 cephalograms obtained from a South African population. 19 landmarks were identified in each of the 409 cephalograms by the primary researcher using the two programs [(409 cephalograms x 19 landmarks) x 2 methods = 15,542 landmarks)]. Each landmark generated two coordinate values (<i>x, y</i>), making a total of 31,084 landmarks. Euclidean distances between corresponding pairs of observations was calculated. Precision was determined by using the standard deviation and standard error of the mean.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary researcher acted as the gold-standard and was calibrated prior to data collection. The inter- and intrareliability tests yielded acceptable results. Variations were present in several landmarks between the two approaches; however, they were statistically insignificant. The computer-assisted examination software was very sensitive to several variables. Several incidental findings were also discovered. Attempts were made to draw valid comparisons and conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference between the two programs regarding the precision of landmark detection. The present study provides a basis to: (1) support the use of automatic landmark detection to be within the range of computer-assisted examination software and (2) determine the learning data required to develop AI systems within an African context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dento maxillo facial radiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10461256/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dento maxillo facial radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20220362\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dento maxillo facial radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20220362","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的以南非数据为基础,比较两种头颅测量标志识别方法(即计算机辅助人体检查软件和人工智能程序)的精确度:这项回顾性定量横断面分析研究使用的数据集包括从南非人口中获取的 409 张头相图。主要研究人员使用两个程序在这 409 张头颅照片中的每张照片上识别出 19 个地标[(409 张头颅照片 x 19 个地标)x 2 种方法 = 15,542 个地标)]。每个地标产生两个坐标值(x、y),总共 31,084 个地标。计算相应观测对之间的欧氏距离。精确度通过标准偏差和平均值的标准误差来确定:主要研究人员作为黄金标准,在数据收集前进行了校准。可靠度间和可靠度内测试的结果均可接受。两种方法在几个地标上存在差异,但在统计上并不显著。计算机辅助检查软件对几个变量非常敏感。此外,还发现了一些偶然的发现。我们试图得出有效的比较和结论:结论:两个软件在地标检测的精确度方面没有明显差异。本研究为以下方面提供了依据:(1) 支持在计算机辅助检查软件的范围内使用自动地标检测;(2) 确定在非洲背景下开发人工智能系统所需的学习数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Human examination and artificial intelligence in cephalometric landmark detection-is AI ready to take over?

Objectives: To compare the precision of two cephalometric landmark identification methods, namely a computer-assisted human examination software and an artificial intelligence program, based on South African data.

Methods: This retrospective quantitative cross-sectional analytical study utilized a data set consisting of 409 cephalograms obtained from a South African population. 19 landmarks were identified in each of the 409 cephalograms by the primary researcher using the two programs [(409 cephalograms x 19 landmarks) x 2 methods = 15,542 landmarks)]. Each landmark generated two coordinate values (x, y), making a total of 31,084 landmarks. Euclidean distances between corresponding pairs of observations was calculated. Precision was determined by using the standard deviation and standard error of the mean.

Results: The primary researcher acted as the gold-standard and was calibrated prior to data collection. The inter- and intrareliability tests yielded acceptable results. Variations were present in several landmarks between the two approaches; however, they were statistically insignificant. The computer-assisted examination software was very sensitive to several variables. Several incidental findings were also discovered. Attempts were made to draw valid comparisons and conclusions.

Conclusions: There was no significant difference between the two programs regarding the precision of landmark detection. The present study provides a basis to: (1) support the use of automatic landmark detection to be within the range of computer-assisted examination software and (2) determine the learning data required to develop AI systems within an African context.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
65
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信