基于人工智能的在线软件WebCeph的准确性和可靠性评估

IF 0.5 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Deepika Katyal, Nivethigaa Balakrishnan
{"title":"基于人工智能的在线软件WebCeph的准确性和可靠性评估","authors":"Deepika Katyal, Nivethigaa Balakrishnan","doi":"10.25259/apos_138_2021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nLandmark identification is of utmost importance in cephalometric analysis but it turns out to be the main source of error. With modern inventions in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), it becomes essential to assess the reliability of computer-automated programs. A greater deal of time can be conserved with fully automated programs such as WebCeph, which uses an AI-based algorithm that performs automated and immediate cephalometric analysis. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and duration of tracing cephalometric radiographs with WebCeph, an AI-based software in comparison to digital tracing with FACAD and manual tracing. The null hypothesis proposed is that there is no statistically significant difference among the three methods with regard to accuracy of cephalometric analysis.\n\n\n\nPre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 25 patients (14 males and 11 females, mean age of 18 ± 3.2 years) were selected randomly from the dental information archiving software of Saveetha University, Department of Orthodontics, Chennai. Composite analysis with skeletal, dental and soft-tissue parameters was selected and cephalometric analysis was done with all three methods – Manual tracing (Group 1), digital tracing using FACAD (Group 2), and fully automated AI-based software WebCeph (Group 3). The timing for each method of analysis was calculated using a stopwatch in seconds. Values were tabulated in an Excel sheet and statistical analysis including one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test were performed.\n\n\n\nNo statistically significant difference was found between the three methods for cephalometric analysis, P > 0.05. The time taken for measurement using the three different methods was the least while using WebCeph (30.2 ± 6.4 s) and the maximum while manual tracing (472 ± 40.4 s).\n\n\n\nWebCeph is a reliable, faster and practical tool for analyzing cephalometric analysis in comparison to digital tracing using FACAD and manual tracing.\n","PeriodicalId":42593,"journal":{"name":"APOS Trends in Orthodontics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of WebCeph – An artificial intelligence-based online software\",\"authors\":\"Deepika Katyal, Nivethigaa Balakrishnan\",\"doi\":\"10.25259/apos_138_2021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\nLandmark identification is of utmost importance in cephalometric analysis but it turns out to be the main source of error. With modern inventions in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), it becomes essential to assess the reliability of computer-automated programs. A greater deal of time can be conserved with fully automated programs such as WebCeph, which uses an AI-based algorithm that performs automated and immediate cephalometric analysis. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and duration of tracing cephalometric radiographs with WebCeph, an AI-based software in comparison to digital tracing with FACAD and manual tracing. The null hypothesis proposed is that there is no statistically significant difference among the three methods with regard to accuracy of cephalometric analysis.\\n\\n\\n\\nPre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 25 patients (14 males and 11 females, mean age of 18 ± 3.2 years) were selected randomly from the dental information archiving software of Saveetha University, Department of Orthodontics, Chennai. Composite analysis with skeletal, dental and soft-tissue parameters was selected and cephalometric analysis was done with all three methods – Manual tracing (Group 1), digital tracing using FACAD (Group 2), and fully automated AI-based software WebCeph (Group 3). The timing for each method of analysis was calculated using a stopwatch in seconds. Values were tabulated in an Excel sheet and statistical analysis including one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test were performed.\\n\\n\\n\\nNo statistically significant difference was found between the three methods for cephalometric analysis, P > 0.05. The time taken for measurement using the three different methods was the least while using WebCeph (30.2 ± 6.4 s) and the maximum while manual tracing (472 ± 40.4 s).\\n\\n\\n\\nWebCeph is a reliable, faster and practical tool for analyzing cephalometric analysis in comparison to digital tracing using FACAD and manual tracing.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":42593,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"APOS Trends in Orthodontics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"APOS Trends in Orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25259/apos_138_2021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"APOS Trends in Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/apos_138_2021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

地标性识别在头颅测量分析中至关重要,但它也是误差的主要来源。随着人工智能(AI)领域的现代发明,评估计算机自动化程序的可靠性变得至关重要。使用WebCeph等全自动程序可以节省更多的时间,WebCeph使用基于人工智能的算法来执行自动和即时的头部测量分析。本研究旨在评估使用WebCeph(一种基于人工智能的软件)追踪头颅x线片的准确性、可靠性和持续时间,并与使用FACAD和手动追踪的数字追踪进行比较。提出的原假设是,三种方法在头颅测量分析的准确性方面没有统计学上的显著差异。随机选择25例患者(男14例,女11例,平均年龄18±3.2岁)的治疗前头部x线片,数据来源于印度金奈Saveetha大学正畸科牙科信息存档软件。选择骨骼、牙齿和软组织参数的复合分析,并使用所有三种方法进行头部测量分析-手动追踪(组1),使用FACAD的数字追踪(组2)和全自动基于人工智能的软件WebCeph(组3)。每种分析方法的时间使用秒表以秒为单位计算。将数值制成Excel表格,并进行统计分析,包括单因素方差分析和事后Tukey检验。三种方法的头颅测量结果比较,差异均无统计学意义,P > 0.05。三种测量方法的测量时间WebCeph最短(30.2±6.4 s),手工追踪最长(472±40.4 s)。与使用FACAD和手工追踪的数字追踪相比,WebCeph是一种可靠、快速和实用的分析头测量分析工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of the accuracy and reliability of WebCeph – An artificial intelligence-based online software
Landmark identification is of utmost importance in cephalometric analysis but it turns out to be the main source of error. With modern inventions in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), it becomes essential to assess the reliability of computer-automated programs. A greater deal of time can be conserved with fully automated programs such as WebCeph, which uses an AI-based algorithm that performs automated and immediate cephalometric analysis. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and duration of tracing cephalometric radiographs with WebCeph, an AI-based software in comparison to digital tracing with FACAD and manual tracing. The null hypothesis proposed is that there is no statistically significant difference among the three methods with regard to accuracy of cephalometric analysis. Pre-treatment cephalometric radiographs of 25 patients (14 males and 11 females, mean age of 18 ± 3.2 years) were selected randomly from the dental information archiving software of Saveetha University, Department of Orthodontics, Chennai. Composite analysis with skeletal, dental and soft-tissue parameters was selected and cephalometric analysis was done with all three methods – Manual tracing (Group 1), digital tracing using FACAD (Group 2), and fully automated AI-based software WebCeph (Group 3). The timing for each method of analysis was calculated using a stopwatch in seconds. Values were tabulated in an Excel sheet and statistical analysis including one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test were performed. No statistically significant difference was found between the three methods for cephalometric analysis, P > 0.05. The time taken for measurement using the three different methods was the least while using WebCeph (30.2 ± 6.4 s) and the maximum while manual tracing (472 ± 40.4 s). WebCeph is a reliable, faster and practical tool for analyzing cephalometric analysis in comparison to digital tracing using FACAD and manual tracing.
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
APOS Trends in Orthodontics
APOS Trends in Orthodontics DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
×
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