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":"3125-3133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12572563/pdf/","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":"2024/12/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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
基于深度学习的根尖周x线片根尖周指数评分系统的开发。
根尖周指数(PAI)评分系统是x线片上评价根尖牙周炎(AP)最常用的指标。它提供了从健康到严重AP的1到5的顺序等级。对PAI进行评分是一个耗时的过程,需要有经验的牙医;因此,深度学习已被应用于加速这一过程。然而,大多数模型都不能准确地对AP的早期阶段或得分2进行评分,因为它与相邻的得分具有非常相似的特征。在本研究中,我们提出并比较了PAI评分的二元分类方法,即正常状态分类法和健康-疾病分类法。正态性分类法将PAI得分1分为正常和异常两类,健康-疾病分类法将PAI得分1和2分为健康和病变两类。从520张根尖周围x线片(Pas)中选出2266个根尖周围区域(pra),并由专家评分。本研究使用GoogLeNet、AlexNet和ResNet卷积神经网络(cnn)。对训练好的模型的性能进行评价和比较。正态分类法模型的准确率最高,为75.00%,而健康-疾病分类法模型的准确率最高,为83.33%。综上所述,CNN模型将PAI评分1和2分归为一类时,分类效果更好,支持健康疾病PAI评分在临床中的应用。
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
BDU-Net: An Edge-Segmentation-Oriented U-Shaped Network for Pediatric Knee Joint Segmentation. Optimal Lossy Compression Scheme of 3D Volumetric Ultrasound Images For Remote Breast Cancer Screening. The Clinical Utility of Three-Dimensional Liver Modelling: A Multicenter Survey. ITSRS: An Inverse Taylor Series Adaptive Loss Based on Synergized Regional-Structural Information for Medical Image Segmentation. Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN1-3) Disease Grading Using a Mixture of Experts Approach.
×
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:604180095
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