Orthodontic treatment outcome predictive performance differences between artificial intelligence and conventional methods

Sung Joo Cho, Jun-Ho Moon, Dong-Yub Ko, Ju-Myung Lee, Ji-Ae Park, R. E. Donatelli, Shin-Jae Lee
{"title":"Orthodontic treatment outcome predictive performance differences between artificial intelligence and conventional methods","authors":"Sung Joo Cho, Jun-Ho Moon, Dong-Yub Ko, Ju-Myung Lee, Ji-Ae Park, R. E. Donatelli, Shin-Jae Lee","doi":"10.2319/111823-767.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n To evaluate an artificial intelligence (AI) model in predicting soft tissue and alveolar bone changes following orthodontic treatment and compare the predictive performance of the AI model with conventional prediction models.\n \n \n \n A total of 1774 lateral cephalograms of 887 adult patients who had undergone orthodontic treatment were collected. Patients who had orthognathic surgery were excluded. On each cephalogram, 78 landmarks were detected using PIPNet-based AI. Prediction models consisted of 132 predictor variables and 88 outcome variables. Predictor variables were demographics (age, sex), clinical (treatment time, premolar extraction), and Cartesian coordinates of the 64 anatomic landmarks. Outcome variables were Cartesian coordinates of the 22 soft tissue and 22 hard tissue landmarks after orthodontic treatment. The AI prediction model was based on the TabNet deep neural network. Two conventional statistical methods, multivariate multiple linear regression (MMLR) and partial least squares regression (PLSR), were each implemented for comparison. Prediction accuracy among the methods was compared.\n \n \n \n Overall, MMLR demonstrated the most accurate results, while AI was least accurate. AI showed superior predictions in only 5 of the 44 anatomic landmarks, all of which were soft tissue landmarks inferior to menton to the terminal point of the neck.\n \n \n \n When predicting changes following orthodontic treatment, AI was not as effective as conventional statistical methods. However, AI had an outstanding advantage in predicting soft tissue landmarks with substantial variability. Overall, results may indicate the need for a hybrid prediction model that combines conventional and AI methods.\n","PeriodicalId":503286,"journal":{"name":"The Angle Orthodontist","volume":" 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle Orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/111823-767.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

To evaluate an artificial intelligence (AI) model in predicting soft tissue and alveolar bone changes following orthodontic treatment and compare the predictive performance of the AI model with conventional prediction models. A total of 1774 lateral cephalograms of 887 adult patients who had undergone orthodontic treatment were collected. Patients who had orthognathic surgery were excluded. On each cephalogram, 78 landmarks were detected using PIPNet-based AI. Prediction models consisted of 132 predictor variables and 88 outcome variables. Predictor variables were demographics (age, sex), clinical (treatment time, premolar extraction), and Cartesian coordinates of the 64 anatomic landmarks. Outcome variables were Cartesian coordinates of the 22 soft tissue and 22 hard tissue landmarks after orthodontic treatment. The AI prediction model was based on the TabNet deep neural network. Two conventional statistical methods, multivariate multiple linear regression (MMLR) and partial least squares regression (PLSR), were each implemented for comparison. Prediction accuracy among the methods was compared. Overall, MMLR demonstrated the most accurate results, while AI was least accurate. AI showed superior predictions in only 5 of the 44 anatomic landmarks, all of which were soft tissue landmarks inferior to menton to the terminal point of the neck. When predicting changes following orthodontic treatment, AI was not as effective as conventional statistical methods. However, AI had an outstanding advantage in predicting soft tissue landmarks with substantial variability. Overall, results may indicate the need for a hybrid prediction model that combines conventional and AI methods.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工智能与传统方法在正畸治疗结果预测性能方面的差异
评估人工智能(AI)模型在预测正畸治疗后软组织和牙槽骨变化方面的效果,并比较人工智能模型与传统预测模型的预测性能。 研究人员共收集了 887 名接受过正畸治疗的成年患者的 1774 张头颅侧位片。接受过正颌手术的患者被排除在外。使用基于 PIPNet 的人工智能技术检测了每张头颅图上的 78 个地标。预测模型由 132 个预测变量和 88 个结果变量组成。预测变量包括人口统计学(年龄、性别)、临床(治疗时间、前磨牙拔除)和 64 个解剖标志的笛卡尔坐标。结果变量是正畸治疗后 22 个软组织和 22 个硬组织地标的笛卡尔坐标。人工智能预测模型基于 TabNet 深度神经网络。两种传统的统计方法,即多元线性回归(MMLR)和偏最小二乘回归(PLSR),分别进行了比较。比较了各种方法的预测准确性。 总体而言,MMLR 的结果最准确,而人工智能的结果最不准确。在 44 个解剖地标中,人工智能仅在 5 个地标上显示出更高的预测精度,这些地标均为软组织地标,位于颈部终末点的下方。 在预测正畸治疗后的变化时,人工智能不如传统的统计方法有效。不过,人工智能在预测具有较大变异性的软组织地标方面具有突出优势。总之,研究结果表明需要一种结合传统方法和人工智能方法的混合预测模型。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Enhanced pendulum appliance utilizing temporary anchorage device-based Nance arch and modified springs for optimized molar distalization control: a case report Orthodontic treatment of a middle-aged patient with periodontally compromised dentition accompanied by pathologic tooth migration Evaluation of anchorage loss after en masse retraction in orthodontic patients with maxillary protrusion using friction vs frictionless mechanics: randomized clinical trial Vertical and transverse treatment effects of Invisalign First system compared to Hyrax maxillary expanders with fixed appliances in mixed dentition patients Accuracy of soy-based resins for dental 3D printing
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1