Ebru Yurdakurban, Yağızalp Süküt, Gökhan Serhat Duran
{"title":"Assessment of deep learning technique for fully automated mandibular segmentation.","authors":"Ebru Yurdakurban, Yağızalp Süküt, Gökhan Serhat Duran","doi":"10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to assess the precision of an open-source, clinician-trained, and user-friendly convolutional neural network-based model for automatically segmenting the mandible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 55 cone-beam computed tomography scans that met the inclusion criteria were collected and divided into test and training groups. The MONAI (Medical Open Network for Artificial Intelligence) Label active learning tool extension was used to train the automatic model. To assess the model's performance, 15 cone-beam computed tomography scans from the test group were inputted into the model. The ground truth was obtained from manual segmentation data. Metrics including the Dice similarity coefficient, Hausdorff 95%, precision, recall, and segmentation times were calculated. In addition, surface deviations and volumetric differences between the automated and manual segmentation results were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The automated model showed a high level of similarity to the manual segmentation results, with a mean Dice similarity coefficient of 0.926 ± 0.014. The Hausdorff distance was 1.358 ± 0.466 mm, whereas the mean recall and precision values were 0.941 ± 0.028 and 0.941 ± 0.022, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the arithmetic mean of the surface deviation for the entire mandible and 11 different anatomic regions. In terms of volumetric comparisons, the difference between the 2 groups was 1.62 mm³, which was not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The automated model was found to be suitable for clinical use, demonstrating a high degree of agreement with the reference manual method. Clinicians can use open-source software to develop custom automated segmentation models tailored to their specific needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50806,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics","volume":"167 2","pages":"242-249"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.09.006","RegionNum":2,"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
Introduction: This study aimed to assess the precision of an open-source, clinician-trained, and user-friendly convolutional neural network-based model for automatically segmenting the mandible.
Methods: A total of 55 cone-beam computed tomography scans that met the inclusion criteria were collected and divided into test and training groups. The MONAI (Medical Open Network for Artificial Intelligence) Label active learning tool extension was used to train the automatic model. To assess the model's performance, 15 cone-beam computed tomography scans from the test group were inputted into the model. The ground truth was obtained from manual segmentation data. Metrics including the Dice similarity coefficient, Hausdorff 95%, precision, recall, and segmentation times were calculated. In addition, surface deviations and volumetric differences between the automated and manual segmentation results were analyzed.
Results: The automated model showed a high level of similarity to the manual segmentation results, with a mean Dice similarity coefficient of 0.926 ± 0.014. The Hausdorff distance was 1.358 ± 0.466 mm, whereas the mean recall and precision values were 0.941 ± 0.028 and 0.941 ± 0.022, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the arithmetic mean of the surface deviation for the entire mandible and 11 different anatomic regions. In terms of volumetric comparisons, the difference between the 2 groups was 1.62 mm³, which was not statistically significant.
Conclusions: The automated model was found to be suitable for clinical use, demonstrating a high degree of agreement with the reference manual method. Clinicians can use open-source software to develop custom automated segmentation models tailored to their specific needs.
期刊介绍:
Published for more than 100 years, the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics remains the leading orthodontic resource. It is the official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, the American Board of Orthodontics, and the College of Diplomates of the American Board of Orthodontics. Each month its readers have access to original peer-reviewed articles that examine all phases of orthodontic treatment. Illustrated throughout, the publication includes tables, color photographs, and statistical data. Coverage includes successful diagnostic procedures, imaging techniques, bracket and archwire materials, extraction and impaction concerns, orthognathic surgery, TMJ disorders, removable appliances, and adult therapy.