{"title":"人工智能辅助咬翼X光片龋病检测的诊断性能:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Nour Ammar , Jan Kühnisch","doi":"10.1016/j.jdsr.2024.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The accuracy of artificial intelligence-aided (AI) caries diagnosis can vary considerably depending on numerous factors. This review aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AI models for caries detection and classification on bitewing radiographs. Publications after 2010 were screened in five databases. A customized risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool was developed and applied to the 14 articles that met the inclusion criteria out of 935 references. Dataset sizes ranged from 112 to 3686 radiographs. While 86 % of the studies reported a model with an accuracy of ≥80 %, most exhibited unclear or high risk of bias. Three studies compared the model’s diagnostic performance to dentists, in which the models consistently showed higher average sensitivity. Five studies were included in a bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis for overall caries detection. The diagnostic odds ratio was 55.8 (95 % CI= 28.8 – 108.3), and the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (0.76 – 0.94) and 0.89 (0.75 – 0.960), respectively. Independent meta-analyses for dentin and enamel caries detection were conducted and showed sensitivities of 0.84 (0.80 – 0.87) and 0.71 (0.66 – 0.75), respectively. Despite the promising diagnostic performance of AI models, the lack of high-quality, adequately reported, and externally validated studies highlight current challenges and future research needs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51334,"journal":{"name":"Japanese Dental Science Review","volume":"60 ","pages":"Pages 128-136"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1882761624000048/pdfft?md5=2222a527d5cfc2e09b7d545509c0faa0&pid=1-s2.0-S1882761624000048-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence-aided caries detection on bitewing radiographs: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Nour Ammar , Jan Kühnisch\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jdsr.2024.02.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The accuracy of artificial intelligence-aided (AI) caries diagnosis can vary considerably depending on numerous factors. This review aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AI models for caries detection and classification on bitewing radiographs. Publications after 2010 were screened in five databases. A customized risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool was developed and applied to the 14 articles that met the inclusion criteria out of 935 references. Dataset sizes ranged from 112 to 3686 radiographs. While 86 % of the studies reported a model with an accuracy of ≥80 %, most exhibited unclear or high risk of bias. Three studies compared the model’s diagnostic performance to dentists, in which the models consistently showed higher average sensitivity. Five studies were included in a bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis for overall caries detection. The diagnostic odds ratio was 55.8 (95 % CI= 28.8 – 108.3), and the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (0.76 – 0.94) and 0.89 (0.75 – 0.960), respectively. Independent meta-analyses for dentin and enamel caries detection were conducted and showed sensitivities of 0.84 (0.80 – 0.87) and 0.71 (0.66 – 0.75), respectively. Despite the promising diagnostic performance of AI models, the lack of high-quality, adequately reported, and externally validated studies highlight current challenges and future research needs.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Japanese Dental Science Review\",\"volume\":\"60 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 128-136\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1882761624000048/pdfft?md5=2222a527d5cfc2e09b7d545509c0faa0&pid=1-s2.0-S1882761624000048-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Japanese Dental Science Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1882761624000048\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese Dental Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1882761624000048","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}
Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence-aided caries detection on bitewing radiographs: a systematic review and meta-analysis
The accuracy of artificial intelligence-aided (AI) caries diagnosis can vary considerably depending on numerous factors. This review aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AI models for caries detection and classification on bitewing radiographs. Publications after 2010 were screened in five databases. A customized risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool was developed and applied to the 14 articles that met the inclusion criteria out of 935 references. Dataset sizes ranged from 112 to 3686 radiographs. While 86 % of the studies reported a model with an accuracy of ≥80 %, most exhibited unclear or high risk of bias. Three studies compared the model’s diagnostic performance to dentists, in which the models consistently showed higher average sensitivity. Five studies were included in a bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis for overall caries detection. The diagnostic odds ratio was 55.8 (95 % CI= 28.8 – 108.3), and the summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (0.76 – 0.94) and 0.89 (0.75 – 0.960), respectively. Independent meta-analyses for dentin and enamel caries detection were conducted and showed sensitivities of 0.84 (0.80 – 0.87) and 0.71 (0.66 – 0.75), respectively. Despite the promising diagnostic performance of AI models, the lack of high-quality, adequately reported, and externally validated studies highlight current challenges and future research needs.
期刊介绍:
The Japanese Dental Science Review is published by the Japanese Association for Dental Science aiming to introduce the modern aspects of the dental basic and clinical sciences in Japan, and to share and discuss the update information with foreign researchers and dentists for further development of dentistry. In principle, papers are written and submitted on the invitation of one of the Editors, although the Editors would be glad to receive suggestions. Proposals for review articles should be sent by the authors to one of the Editors by e-mail. All submitted papers are subject to the peer- refereeing process.