Detection of Periapical Lesions on Panoramic Radiographs Using Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dentists could fail to notice periapical lesions (PLs) while examining panoramic radiographs. Accordingly, this study aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) designed to address this problem. Materials and methods: a total of 18618 periapical root areas (PRA) on 713 panoramic radiographs were annotated and classified as having or not having PLs. An AI model consisting of two convolutional neural networks (CNNs), a detector and a classifier, was trained on the images. The detector localized PRAs using a bounding-box-based object detection model, while the classifier classified the extracted PRAs as PL or not-PL using a fine-tuned CNN. The classifier was trained and validated on a balanced subset of the original dataset that included 3249 PRAs, and tested on 707 PRAs. Results: the detector achieved an average precision of 74.95%, while the classifier accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were 84%, 81% and 86%, respectively. When integrating both detection and classification models, the proposed method accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 84.6%, 72.2%, and 85.6%, respectively. Conclusion: a two-stage CNN model consisting of a detector and a classifier can successfully detect periapical lesions on panoramic radiographs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".