Comparison of individualized facial growth prediction models based on the partial least squares and artificial intelligence.

Jun-Ho Moon, Hak-Kyun Shin, Ju-Myung Lee, Sung Joo Cho, Ji-Ae Park, Richard E Donatelli, Shin-Jae Lee
{"title":"Comparison of individualized facial growth prediction models based on the partial least squares and artificial intelligence.","authors":"Jun-Ho Moon, Hak-Kyun Shin, Ju-Myung Lee, Sung Joo Cho, Ji-Ae Park, Richard E Donatelli, Shin-Jae Lee","doi":"10.2319/031723-181.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare facial growth prediction models based on the partial least squares and artificial intelligence (AI).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Serial longitudinal lateral cephalograms from 410 patients who had not undergone orthodontic treatment but had taken serial cephalograms were collected from January 2002 to December 2022. On every image, 46 skeletal and 32 soft-tissue landmarks were identified manually. Growth prediction models were constructed using multivariate partial least squares regression (PLS) and a deep learning method based on the TabNet deep neural network incorporating 161 predictor, and 156 response, variables. The prediction accuracy between the two methods was compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On average, AI showed less prediction error by 2.11 mm than PLS. Among the 78 landmarks, AI was more accurate in 63 landmarks, whereas PLS was more accurate in nine landmarks, including cranial base landmarks. The remaining six landmarks showed no statistical difference between the two methods. Overall, soft-tissue landmarks, landmarks in the mandible, and growth in the vertical direction showed greater prediction errors than hard-tissue landmarks, landmarks in the maxilla, and growth changes in the horizontal direction, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PLS and AI methods seemed to be valuable tools for predicting growth. PLS accurately predicted landmarks with low variability in the cranial base. In general, however, AI outperformed, particularly for those landmarks in the maxilla and mandible. Applying AI for growth prediction might be more advantageous when uncertainty is considerable.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10893918/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/031723-181.1","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

Objectives: To compare facial growth prediction models based on the partial least squares and artificial intelligence (AI).

Materials and methods: Serial longitudinal lateral cephalograms from 410 patients who had not undergone orthodontic treatment but had taken serial cephalograms were collected from January 2002 to December 2022. On every image, 46 skeletal and 32 soft-tissue landmarks were identified manually. Growth prediction models were constructed using multivariate partial least squares regression (PLS) and a deep learning method based on the TabNet deep neural network incorporating 161 predictor, and 156 response, variables. The prediction accuracy between the two methods was compared.

Results: On average, AI showed less prediction error by 2.11 mm than PLS. Among the 78 landmarks, AI was more accurate in 63 landmarks, whereas PLS was more accurate in nine landmarks, including cranial base landmarks. The remaining six landmarks showed no statistical difference between the two methods. Overall, soft-tissue landmarks, landmarks in the mandible, and growth in the vertical direction showed greater prediction errors than hard-tissue landmarks, landmarks in the maxilla, and growth changes in the horizontal direction, respectively.

Conclusions: PLS and AI methods seemed to be valuable tools for predicting growth. PLS accurately predicted landmarks with low variability in the cranial base. In general, however, AI outperformed, particularly for those landmarks in the maxilla and mandible. Applying AI for growth prediction might be more advantageous when uncertainty is considerable.

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
基于偏最小二乘和人工智能的个性化面部生长预测模型的比较。
目的:比较基于偏最小二乘法和人工智能(AI)的面部生长预测模型。材料和方法:收集2002年1月至2022年12月410名未接受正畸治疗但已进行系列头影检查的患者的系列纵向-横向头影。在每张图像上,人工识别46个骨骼和32个软组织标志。使用多元偏最小二乘回归(PLS)和基于TabNet深度神经网络的深度学习方法构建了增长预测模型,该方法包含161个预测变量和156个响应变量。比较了两种方法的预测精度。结果:AI的预测误差平均比PLS小2.11mm。在78个标志物中,AI在63个标志物上更准确,而PLS在9个标志物(包括颅底标志物)上更准确。其余六个标志在两种方法之间没有统计学差异。总体而言,软组织标志、下颌骨标志和垂直方向的生长分别比硬组织标志、上颌骨标志和水平方向的生长变化显示出更大的预测误差。结论:PLS和AI方法似乎是预测生长的有价值的工具。PLS准确预测了颅底变异性低的标志物。然而,总的来说,人工智能表现出色,尤其是在上颌骨和下颌骨的标志性部位。当不确定性很大时,将人工智能应用于增长预测可能更有利。
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
Three-dimensional assessment of the nasopharyngeal airway in Down syndrome during the mixed dentition period: a case-control study. Strategic treatment for a patient with missing lateral incisor and first molar accompanied by posterior scissor bite and an impacted premolar. Evaluation of dentoalveolar changes following maxillary incisor intrusion with one vs two anterior miniscrews in subjects with gummy smile: a randomized clinical trial. The OHStat guidelines for reporting observational studies and clinical trials in oral health research: manuscript checklist. A skeletal Class III young adult with severe maxillary transverse deficiency treated with maxillary skeletal expander.
×
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