Development of Periapical Index Score Classification System in Periapical Radiographs Using Deep Learning.

Natdanai Hirata, Panupong Pudhieng, Sadanan Sena, Suebpong Torn-Asa, Wannakamon Panyarak, Kittipit Klanliang, Kittichai Wantanajittikul
{"title":"Development of Periapical Index Score Classification System in Periapical Radiographs Using Deep Learning.","authors":"Natdanai Hirata, Panupong Pudhieng, Sadanan Sena, Suebpong Torn-Asa, Wannakamon Panyarak, Kittipit Klanliang, Kittichai Wantanajittikul","doi":"10.1007/s10278-024-01360-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Periapical index (PAI) scoring system is the most popular index for evaluating apical periodontitis (AP) on radiographs. It provides an ordinal scale of 1 to 5, ranging from healthy to severe AP. Scoring PAI is a time-consuming process and requires experienced dentists; thus, deep learning has been applied to hasten the process. However, most models failed to score the early stage of AP or the score 2 accurately since it shares very similar characteristics with its adjacent scores. In this study, we developed and compared binary classification methods for PAI scores which were normality classification method and health-disease classification method. The normality classification method classified PAI score 1 as Normal and Abnormal for the rest of the scores while the health-disease method classified PAI scores 1 and 2 as Healthy and Diseased for the rest of the scores. A total of 2266 periapical root areas (PRAs) from 520 periapical radiographs (Pas) were selected and scored by experts. GoogLeNet, AlexNet, and ResNet convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were used in this study. Trained models' performances were evaluated and then compared. The models in the normality classification method achieved the highest accuracy of 75.00%, while the health-disease method models performed better with the highest accuracy of 83.33%. In conclusion, CNN models performed better in classification when grouping PAI scores 1 and 2 together in the same class, supporting the health-disease PAI scoring usage in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":516858,"journal":{"name":"Journal of imaging informatics in medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of imaging informatics in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-024-01360-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Periapical index (PAI) scoring system is the most popular index for evaluating apical periodontitis (AP) on radiographs. It provides an ordinal scale of 1 to 5, ranging from healthy to severe AP. Scoring PAI is a time-consuming process and requires experienced dentists; thus, deep learning has been applied to hasten the process. However, most models failed to score the early stage of AP or the score 2 accurately since it shares very similar characteristics with its adjacent scores. In this study, we developed and compared binary classification methods for PAI scores which were normality classification method and health-disease classification method. The normality classification method classified PAI score 1 as Normal and Abnormal for the rest of the scores while the health-disease method classified PAI scores 1 and 2 as Healthy and Diseased for the rest of the scores. A total of 2266 periapical root areas (PRAs) from 520 periapical radiographs (Pas) were selected and scored by experts. GoogLeNet, AlexNet, and ResNet convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were used in this study. Trained models' performances were evaluated and then compared. The models in the normality classification method achieved the highest accuracy of 75.00%, while the health-disease method models performed better with the highest accuracy of 83.33%. In conclusion, CNN models performed better in classification when grouping PAI scores 1 and 2 together in the same class, supporting the health-disease PAI scoring usage in clinical practice.

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
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
Development of Periapical Index Score Classification System in Periapical Radiographs Using Deep Learning. Classification of Interventional Radiology Reports into Technique Categories with a Fine-Tuned Large Language Model. Diagnosing Respiratory Variability: Convolutional Neural Networks for Chest X-ray Classification Across Diverse Pulmonary Conditions. Semi-supervised Ensemble Learning for Automatic Interpretation of Lung Ultrasound Videos. Single-View Fluoroscopic X-Ray Pose Estimation: A Comparison of Alternative Loss Functions and Volumetric Scene Representations.
×
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