基于Mathews生长集的人工智能和偏最小二乘个性化面部生长预测模型的比较

Jeffrey Roseth, Jong-Hak Kim, Jun-Ho Moon, Dong-Yub Ko, Heesoo Oh, Shin-Jae Lee, Heeyeon Suh
{"title":"基于Mathews生长集的人工智能和偏最小二乘个性化面部生长预测模型的比较","authors":"Jeffrey Roseth, Jong-Hak Kim, Jun-Ho Moon, Dong-Yub Ko, Heesoo Oh, Shin-Jae Lee, Heeyeon Suh","doi":"10.2319/082124-687.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To develop facial growth prediction models using artificial intelligence (AI) under various conditions, and to compare performance of these models with each other as well as with the partial least squares (PLS) growth prediction model.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Longitudinal lateral cephalograms from 33 subjects in the Mathews growth collection were utilized. A total of 1257 pairs of before and after growth lateral cephalograms were included. In each image, 46 hard and 32 soft tissue landmarks were manually identified. Growth prediction models were constructed using a deep learning method based on TabNet deep neural network and partial least squares (PLS) method. Prediction accuracies of the two methods were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On average, artificial intelligence (AI) showed 0.61 mm less prediction error than PLS. Among the 77 predicted landmarks, AI was more accurate than PLS in 60 landmarks. When comparing AI models with varying numbers of training epochs, those with higher epochs yielded more accurate predictions. Overall, PLS and AI exhibited greater prediction errors for soft tissue and mandibular landmarks compared to hard tissue and maxillary landmarks. However, AI showed a smaller increase in prediction error in areas with greater variability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI proved to be a valuable growth prediction method, with clinically acceptable prediction errors averaging 1.49 mm for 45 hard tissue landmarks and 1.71 mm for 32 soft tissue landmarks. PLS accurately predicted landmarks with low variability. However, AI generally outperformed PLS, particularly for landmarks in the lower part of the craniofacial structure and soft tissue, where uncertainty is considerable.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":"249-258"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12017544/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of individualized facial growth prediction models using artificial intelligence and partial least squares based on the Mathews growth collection.\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey Roseth, Jong-Hak Kim, Jun-Ho Moon, Dong-Yub Ko, Heesoo Oh, Shin-Jae Lee, Heeyeon Suh\",\"doi\":\"10.2319/082124-687.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To develop facial growth prediction models using artificial intelligence (AI) under various conditions, and to compare performance of these models with each other as well as with the partial least squares (PLS) growth prediction model.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Longitudinal lateral cephalograms from 33 subjects in the Mathews growth collection were utilized. A total of 1257 pairs of before and after growth lateral cephalograms were included. In each image, 46 hard and 32 soft tissue landmarks were manually identified. Growth prediction models were constructed using a deep learning method based on TabNet deep neural network and partial least squares (PLS) method. Prediction accuracies of the two methods were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On average, artificial intelligence (AI) showed 0.61 mm less prediction error than PLS. Among the 77 predicted landmarks, AI was more accurate than PLS in 60 landmarks. When comparing AI models with varying numbers of training epochs, those with higher epochs yielded more accurate predictions. Overall, PLS and AI exhibited greater prediction errors for soft tissue and mandibular landmarks compared to hard tissue and maxillary landmarks. However, AI showed a smaller increase in prediction error in areas with greater variability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI proved to be a valuable growth prediction method, with clinically acceptable prediction errors averaging 1.49 mm for 45 hard tissue landmarks and 1.71 mm for 32 soft tissue landmarks. PLS accurately predicted landmarks with low variability. However, AI generally outperformed PLS, particularly for landmarks in the lower part of the craniofacial structure and soft tissue, where uncertainty is considerable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Angle orthodontist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"249-258\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12017544/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Angle orthodontist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2319/082124-687.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/082124-687.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:利用人工智能(AI)建立各种条件下的面部生长预测模型,并比较这些模型之间的性能以及与偏最小二乘(PLS)生长预测模型的性能。材料和方法:利用Mathews生长收集的33名受试者的纵向侧位脑电图。共纳入1257对生长侧位脑电图前后。在每张图像中,人工识别了46个硬组织和32个软组织地标。采用基于TabNet深度神经网络和偏最小二乘(PLS)方法的深度学习方法构建生长预测模型。比较了两种方法的预测精度。结果:人工智能(AI)的预测误差比PLS平均小0.61 mm,在77个路标中,AI在60个路标上的预测精度高于PLS。当比较具有不同训练周期数的人工智能模型时,那些周期数较高的模型得出的预测更准确。总体而言,与硬组织和上颌标志相比,PLS和AI对软组织和下颌标志的预测误差更大。然而,人工智能显示,在变化较大的地区,预测误差的增加幅度较小。结论:人工智能被证明是一种有价值的生长预测方法,45个硬组织标志的临床可接受预测误差平均为1.49 mm, 32个软组织标志的平均预测误差为1.71 mm。PLS准确地预测了低变异性的地标。然而,人工智能通常优于PLS,特别是对于颅面结构和软组织下部的地标,其中不确定性相当大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of individualized facial growth prediction models using artificial intelligence and partial least squares based on the Mathews growth collection.

Objectives: To develop facial growth prediction models using artificial intelligence (AI) under various conditions, and to compare performance of these models with each other as well as with the partial least squares (PLS) growth prediction model.

Materials and methods: Longitudinal lateral cephalograms from 33 subjects in the Mathews growth collection were utilized. A total of 1257 pairs of before and after growth lateral cephalograms were included. In each image, 46 hard and 32 soft tissue landmarks were manually identified. Growth prediction models were constructed using a deep learning method based on TabNet deep neural network and partial least squares (PLS) method. Prediction accuracies of the two methods were compared.

Results: On average, artificial intelligence (AI) showed 0.61 mm less prediction error than PLS. Among the 77 predicted landmarks, AI was more accurate than PLS in 60 landmarks. When comparing AI models with varying numbers of training epochs, those with higher epochs yielded more accurate predictions. Overall, PLS and AI exhibited greater prediction errors for soft tissue and mandibular landmarks compared to hard tissue and maxillary landmarks. However, AI showed a smaller increase in prediction error in areas with greater variability.

Conclusions: AI proved to be a valuable growth prediction method, with clinically acceptable prediction errors averaging 1.49 mm for 45 hard tissue landmarks and 1.71 mm for 32 soft tissue landmarks. PLS accurately predicted landmarks with low variability. However, AI generally outperformed PLS, particularly for landmarks in the lower part of the craniofacial structure and soft tissue, where uncertainty is considerable.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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