使用深度学习方法为硅胶颌面修复体着色:两种方法的比较。

IF 1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.4103/jips.jips_149_22
Meral Kurt, Zuhal Kurt, Şahin Işık
{"title":"使用深度学习方法为硅胶颌面修复体着色:两种方法的比较。","authors":"Meral Kurt, Zuhal Kurt, Şahin Işık","doi":"10.4103/jips.jips_149_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to compare the performance of two deep learning algorithms, attention-based gated recurrent unit (GRU), and the artificial neural networks (ANNs) algorithm for coloring silicone maxillofacial prostheses.</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>This was an in vitro study.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 21 silicone samples in different colors were produced with four pigments (white, yellow, red, and blue). The color of the samples was measured with a spectrophotometer, then the LFNx01, aFNx01, and bFNx01 values were recorded. The relationship between the LFNx01, aFNx01, and bFNx01 values of each sample and the amount of each pigment in the compound of the same sample was used as the training dataset, entered into each algorithm, and the prediction models were obtained. While generating the prediction model for each sample, the data of the corresponding sample assigned as the target color were excluded. LFNx01, aFNx01, and bFNx01 values of each target sample were entered into the obtained models separately, and recipes indicating the ratios for mixing the four pigments were predicted. The mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) values between the original recipe used in the production of each silicone and the recipe created by both prediction models for the same silicone were calculated.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>Data were analyzed with the Student t-test (α=0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean RMSE values and MAE values for the ANN algorithm (0.029 ± 0.0152 and 0.045 ± 0.0235, respectively) were found significantly higher than the attention-based GRU model (0.001 ± 0.0005 and 0.002 ± 0.0008, respectively) (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Attention-based GRU model provided better performance than the ANN algorithm with respect to the MAE and RMSE values.</p>","PeriodicalId":22669,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","volume":"23 1","pages":"84-89"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10088445/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using deep learning approaches for coloring silicone maxillofacial prostheses: A comparison of two approaches.\",\"authors\":\"Meral Kurt, Zuhal Kurt, Şahin Işık\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jips.jips_149_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to compare the performance of two deep learning algorithms, attention-based gated recurrent unit (GRU), and the artificial neural networks (ANNs) algorithm for coloring silicone maxillofacial prostheses.</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>This was an in vitro study.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 21 silicone samples in different colors were produced with four pigments (white, yellow, red, and blue). The color of the samples was measured with a spectrophotometer, then the LFNx01, aFNx01, and bFNx01 values were recorded. The relationship between the LFNx01, aFNx01, and bFNx01 values of each sample and the amount of each pigment in the compound of the same sample was used as the training dataset, entered into each algorithm, and the prediction models were obtained. While generating the prediction model for each sample, the data of the corresponding sample assigned as the target color were excluded. LFNx01, aFNx01, and bFNx01 values of each target sample were entered into the obtained models separately, and recipes indicating the ratios for mixing the four pigments were predicted. The mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) values between the original recipe used in the production of each silicone and the recipe created by both prediction models for the same silicone were calculated.</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>Data were analyzed with the Student t-test (α=0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean RMSE values and MAE values for the ANN algorithm (0.029 ± 0.0152 and 0.045 ± 0.0235, respectively) were found significantly higher than the attention-based GRU model (0.001 ± 0.0005 and 0.002 ± 0.0008, respectively) (P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Attention-based GRU model provided better performance than the ANN algorithm with respect to the MAE and RMSE values.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22669,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"84-89\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10088445/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_149_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_149_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:本研究旨在比较两种深度学习算法(基于注意力的门控递归单元(GRU)和人工神经网络(ANN)算法)在硅胶颌面假体着色方面的性能:这是一项体外研究:使用四种颜料(白色、黄色、红色和蓝色)制作了 21 个不同颜色的硅胶样品。用分光光度计测量样品的颜色,然后记录 LFNx01、aFNx01 和 bFNx01 值。将每个样品的 LFNx01、aFNx01 和 bFNx01 值与同一样品化合物中每种色素的含量之间的关系作为训练数据集,输入到每种算法中,得到预测模型。在生成每个样品的预测模型时,不包括被指定为目标色的相应样品的数据。将每个目标样品的 LFNx01、aFNx01 和 bFNx01 值分别输入所获得的模型,并预测出表示四种颜料混合比例的配方。计算了用于生产每种有机硅的原始配方与两个预测模型为同一有机硅创建的配方之间的平均绝对误差 (MAE) 和均方根误差 (RMSE):数据分析采用学生 t 检验(α=0.05):结果:ANN 算法的平均 RMSE 值和 MAE 值(分别为 0.029 ± 0.0152 和 0.045 ± 0.0235)明显高于基于注意力的 GRU 模型(分别为 0.001 ± 0.0005 和 0.002 ± 0.0008)(P < 0.001):结论:就 MAE 值和 RMSE 值而言,基于注意力的 GRU 模型的性能优于 ANN 算法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Using deep learning approaches for coloring silicone maxillofacial prostheses: A comparison of two approaches.

Aim: This study aimed to compare the performance of two deep learning algorithms, attention-based gated recurrent unit (GRU), and the artificial neural networks (ANNs) algorithm for coloring silicone maxillofacial prostheses.

Settings and design: This was an in vitro study.

Materials and methods: A total of 21 silicone samples in different colors were produced with four pigments (white, yellow, red, and blue). The color of the samples was measured with a spectrophotometer, then the LFNx01, aFNx01, and bFNx01 values were recorded. The relationship between the LFNx01, aFNx01, and bFNx01 values of each sample and the amount of each pigment in the compound of the same sample was used as the training dataset, entered into each algorithm, and the prediction models were obtained. While generating the prediction model for each sample, the data of the corresponding sample assigned as the target color were excluded. LFNx01, aFNx01, and bFNx01 values of each target sample were entered into the obtained models separately, and recipes indicating the ratios for mixing the four pigments were predicted. The mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) values between the original recipe used in the production of each silicone and the recipe created by both prediction models for the same silicone were calculated.

Statistical analysis used: Data were analyzed with the Student t-test (α=0.05).

Results: The mean RMSE values and MAE values for the ANN algorithm (0.029 ± 0.0152 and 0.045 ± 0.0235, respectively) were found significantly higher than the attention-based GRU model (0.001 ± 0.0005 and 0.002 ± 0.0008, respectively) (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Attention-based GRU model provided better performance than the ANN algorithm with respect to the MAE and RMSE values.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Comparison of the antibacterial efficacy of 810 nm diode laser and photodynamic therapy in reducing microbial flora in patients with peri-implant mucositis - An in vivo study. Evaluation of marginal accuracy of polyetheretherketone and zirconia copings fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technique: An in vitro study. Incorporation of opacifier to Type III alpha gypsum and its effect on scannability and linear setting expansion - An in vitro study. Over-provisionals - Simplified chairside preoperative evaluation of esthetic and functional changes during full mouth rehabilitation. Reporting guidelines: Elevating standards in scientific communication.
×
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