MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561158009 · doi:10.1093/ejo/cjw079

Reliability of upper pharyngeal airway assessment using dental CBCT: a systematic review

2016· review· en· W2561158009 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Orthodontics · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)MedicineAirwaySystematic reviewCone beam computed tomographyMeta-analysisMEDLINEProtocol (science)DentistryMedical physicsOrthodonticsRadiologyComputed tomographySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Upper airway analysis is an often-cited use of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging in orthodontics. However, the reliability of this process in a clinical setting is largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the reliability of upper pharyngeal airway assessment using dental CBCT. SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched through June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Human studies that measured reliability of upper airway assessment in patients using CBCT as part of the study protocol were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was followed. Data were collected on overall study characteristics and measurements, CBCT unit and machine settings used, and examination characteristics of the included studies. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-two studies were evaluated, representing the CBCT scans of 956 patients. Studies included a wide variety of patients and CBCT machines with various scan settings. Only five studies were deemed high quality. The available evidence indicates that under specific restricted conditions there is moderate to excellent intra- and inter-examiner reliability. Airway volume demonstrated greater intra- and inter-examiner reliability than did minimum cross-sectional area. However, significant methodological limitations of the current literature, most importantly a lack of manual orientation of the images and selection of threshold sensitivity in study protocols, suggest that reliability has not been adequately established. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature reports moderate to excellent reliability, with airway volume having higher reliability than minimum cross-sectional area. However, only limited aspects of the process of airway analysis have been evaluated, indicating that further research is required to adequately establish the reliability of upper pharyngeal airway assessment of patients using dental CBCT. REGISTRATION: None.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it