MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081782557 · doi:10.1111/iej.13397

Clinical decision‐making and importance of the AAE/AAOMR position statement for CBCT examination in endodontic cases

2020· article· en· W3081782557 on OpenAlexaff
Megna Bhatt, Jeffrey M. Coil, Babak Chehroudi, Ana I. S. Esteves, Jolanta Aleksejūnienė, David MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Endodontic Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicEndodontics and Root Canal Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCone beam computed tomographyEndodonticsRadiographyDentistryMcNemar's testMedical diagnosisRadiation treatment planningOrthodonticsComputed tomographyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To compare conventional radiographic and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) findings with reference to the American Association of Endodontics and American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (AAE/AAOMR) joint position statement and to determine the effect of the CBCT on the initial diagnoses and treatment plans in a single-centre Postgraduate Endodontic Programme. METHODOLOGY: The clinical CBCT scans of patients, treated at the Endodontic Department of the University of British Columbia, were reviewed for CBCT referrals by comparing them with corresponding radiographs. The features considered were periapical lesions, missed/extra canals, root fractures, complex anatomy, calcified canals and root resorption of tooth/teeth in question. Reasons for the CBCT prescriptions were assigned to 3 groups: to formulate the primary diagnosis, to confirm the diagnosis achieved by clinical examination and conventional radiographs, and to assist in treatment planning. Variables were compared statistically using chi-square and McNemar tests. RESULTS: A total of 128 CBCT examinations were performed on 110 patients. No CBCT examination was performed more than once on the same tooth. Overall, 76% of CBCT examinations were performed on previously root filled teeth. CBCT images revealed a significantly higher incidence of periapical lesions (P = 0.002), missed canals (P < 0.001), vertical root fractures (P = 0.004) and complex anatomy (P = 0.008) than periapical radiographs. CBCT was prescribed most frequently to assist surgical treatment planning (62%) rather than for generating a diagnosis (9%) or confirming diagnoses (29%). Both the diagnosis (P = 0.001) and the treatment plan (P = 0.005) initially made by examining periapical radiographs were altered significantly by the subsequent CBCT examination by revealing information such as new periapical lesions, missed canals or involvement of buccal or lingual cortical bone. CONCLUSION: CBCT examinations were prescribed mainly to assist treatment planning rather than for diagnosis. The majority of CBCT examinations were performed on previously root filled teeth. The additional information obtained from CBCT scans resulted in the alteration of the initial diagnoses as well as subsequent treatment plans in 59 out of 128 cases.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Endodontic JournalSame topicEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207