Prediction of patient cooperation before orthodontic treatment: Handwriting and artificial intelligence.

IF 2.6 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists Pub Date : 2024-09-03 DOI:10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.07.004
Farhad Salmanpour, Hasan Camcı
{"title":"Prediction of patient cooperation before orthodontic treatment: Handwriting and artificial intelligence.","authors":"Farhad Salmanpour, Hasan Camcı","doi":"10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.07.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the success of various convolutional neural network (CNN) models trained with handwriting samples in predicting patient cooperation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 237 (147 female and 90 male, mean age 14.94 ± 2.4) patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment were included in the study. In the 12th month of treatment, participants were divided into two groups based on the patient cooperation scale: cooperative or noncooperative. Then, for each patient, handwriting samples were obtained. Artificial neural network models were used to classify the patients as cooperative or noncooperative using the collected data. The accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score values of nine different CNN models were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>By overall success rate, InceptionResNetV2 (Accuracy: 72.0%, F1-score: 0.649) and NasNetMobil (Accuracy: 70.0%, F1-score: 0.417) were the two most effective CNN models. The two models with the lowest success rate were DenseNet121 (Accuracy: 59.0%, F1-score: 0.424) and ResNet50V2 (Accuracy: 46.0%, F1-score: 0.286). The success rates of the other five models were comparable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The artificial intelligence models trained with handwriting samples are not sufficiently accurate for clinical application in cooperation prediction.</p>","PeriodicalId":43456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.07.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the success of various convolutional neural network (CNN) models trained with handwriting samples in predicting patient cooperation.

Methods: A total of 237 (147 female and 90 male, mean age 14.94 ± 2.4) patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment were included in the study. In the 12th month of treatment, participants were divided into two groups based on the patient cooperation scale: cooperative or noncooperative. Then, for each patient, handwriting samples were obtained. Artificial neural network models were used to classify the patients as cooperative or noncooperative using the collected data. The accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score values of nine different CNN models were compared.

Results: By overall success rate, InceptionResNetV2 (Accuracy: 72.0%, F1-score: 0.649) and NasNetMobil (Accuracy: 70.0%, F1-score: 0.417) were the two most effective CNN models. The two models with the lowest success rate were DenseNet121 (Accuracy: 59.0%, F1-score: 0.424) and ResNet50V2 (Accuracy: 46.0%, F1-score: 0.286). The success rates of the other five models were comparable.

Conclusions: The artificial intelligence models trained with handwriting samples are not sufficiently accurate for clinical application in cooperation prediction.

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
预测正畸治疗前患者的合作情况:手写和人工智能
研究背景本研究的目的是比较使用手写样本训练的各种卷积神经网络(CNN)模型在预测患者配合度方面的成功率:研究共纳入 237 名接受固定正畸治疗的患者(147 名女性,90 名男性,平均年龄为 14.94 ± 2.4)。在治疗的第 12 个月,根据患者合作量表将参与者分为两组:合作组和不合作组。然后,为每位患者采集笔迹样本。人工神经网络模型利用收集到的数据将患者分为合作和不合作两组。比较了九种不同 CNN 模型的准确度、精确度、召回率和 F1 分数:从总体成功率来看,InceptionResNetV2(准确率:72.0%,F1-分数:0.649)和 NasNetMobil(准确率:70.0%,F1-分数:0.417)是两个最有效的 CNN 模型。成功率最低的两个模型是 DenseNet121(准确率:59.0%,F1-分数:0.424)和 ResNet50V2(准确率:46.0%,F1-分数:0.286)。其他五个模型的成功率相当:结论:使用手写样本训练的人工智能模型在合作预测的临床应用中不够准确。
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
Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists
Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.80%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Microplastics and orthodontic aligners: The concerns arising from the modernization of practice through polymers and plastics. Assessment of coated orthodontic miniscrews with chlorhexidine hexametaphosphate antimicrobial nanoparticles: A randomized clinical trial. Protraction of a mandibular second molar into the adjacent atrophic first-molar extraction site with ridge-split technique through clear aligners: A case report. Automated dentition segmentation: 3D UNet-based approach with MIScnn framework. In vitro physical properties and clinical stability of reused orthodontic miniscrews: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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