Pasquale Santamaria, Giuseppe Troiano, Matteo Serroni, Tiago G. Araùjo, Andrea Ravidà, Luigi Nibali
{"title":"Exploring the accuracy of tooth loss prediction between a clinical periodontal prognostic system and a machine learning prognostic model","authors":"Pasquale Santamaria, Giuseppe Troiano, Matteo Serroni, Tiago G. Araùjo, Andrea Ravidà, Luigi Nibali","doi":"10.1111/jcpe.14023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of this analysis was to compare a clinical periodontal prognostic system and a developed and externally validated artificial intelligence (AI)-based model for the prediction of tooth loss in periodontitis patients under supportive periodontal care (SPC) for 10 years.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Clinical and radiographic parameters were analysed to assign tooth prognosis with a tooth prognostic system (TPS) by two calibrated examiners from different clinical centres (London and Pittsburgh). The prediction model was developed on the London dataset. A logistic regression model (LR) and a neural network model (NN) were developed to analyse the data. These models were externally validated on the Pittsburgh dataset. The primary outcome was 10-year tooth loss in teeth assigned with ‘unfavourable’ prognosis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 1626 teeth in 69 patients were included in the London cohort (development cohort), while 2792 teeth in 116 patients were included in the Pittsburgh cohort (external validated dataset). While the TPS in the validation cohort exhibited high specificity (99.96%), moderate positive predictive value (PPV = 50.0%) and very low sensitivity (0.85%), the AI-based model showed moderate specificity (NN = 52.26%, LR = 67.59%), high sensitivity (NN = 98.29%, LR = 91.45%), and high PPV (NN = 89.1%, LR = 88.6%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>AI-based models showed comparable results with the clinical prediction model, with a better performance in specific prognostic risk categories, confirming AI prediction model as a promising tool for the prediction of tooth loss.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15380,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Periodontology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jcpe.14023","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Periodontology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpe.14023","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim
The aim of this analysis was to compare a clinical periodontal prognostic system and a developed and externally validated artificial intelligence (AI)-based model for the prediction of tooth loss in periodontitis patients under supportive periodontal care (SPC) for 10 years.
Materials and Methods
Clinical and radiographic parameters were analysed to assign tooth prognosis with a tooth prognostic system (TPS) by two calibrated examiners from different clinical centres (London and Pittsburgh). The prediction model was developed on the London dataset. A logistic regression model (LR) and a neural network model (NN) were developed to analyse the data. These models were externally validated on the Pittsburgh dataset. The primary outcome was 10-year tooth loss in teeth assigned with ‘unfavourable’ prognosis.
Results
A total of 1626 teeth in 69 patients were included in the London cohort (development cohort), while 2792 teeth in 116 patients were included in the Pittsburgh cohort (external validated dataset). While the TPS in the validation cohort exhibited high specificity (99.96%), moderate positive predictive value (PPV = 50.0%) and very low sensitivity (0.85%), the AI-based model showed moderate specificity (NN = 52.26%, LR = 67.59%), high sensitivity (NN = 98.29%, LR = 91.45%), and high PPV (NN = 89.1%, LR = 88.6%).
Conclusions
AI-based models showed comparable results with the clinical prediction model, with a better performance in specific prognostic risk categories, confirming AI prediction model as a promising tool for the prediction of tooth loss.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Clinical Periodontology was founded by the British, Dutch, French, German, Scandinavian, and Swiss Societies of Periodontology.
The aim of the Journal of Clinical Periodontology is to provide the platform for exchange of scientific and clinical progress in the field of Periodontology and allied disciplines, and to do so at the highest possible level. The Journal also aims to facilitate the application of new scientific knowledge to the daily practice of the concerned disciplines and addresses both practicing clinicians and academics. The Journal is the official publication of the European Federation of Periodontology but wishes to retain its international scope.
The Journal publishes original contributions of high scientific merit in the fields of periodontology and implant dentistry. Its scope encompasses the physiology and pathology of the periodontium, the tissue integration of dental implants, the biology and the modulation of periodontal and alveolar bone healing and regeneration, diagnosis, epidemiology, prevention and therapy of periodontal disease, the clinical aspects of tooth replacement with dental implants, and the comprehensive rehabilitation of the periodontal patient. Review articles by experts on new developments in basic and applied periodontal science and associated dental disciplines, advances in periodontal or implant techniques and procedures, and case reports which illustrate important new information are also welcome.