Detecting dental caries on oral photographs using artificial intelligence: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed at evaluating the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models in detecting dental caries on oral photographs. METHODS: Methodological characteristics and performance metrics of clinical studies reporting on deep learning and other machine learning algorithms were assessed. The risk of bias was evaluated using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A systematic search was conducted in EMBASE, Medline, and Scopus. RESULTS: Out of 3410 identified records, 19 studies were included with six and seven studies having low risk of biases and applicability concerns for all the domains, respectively. Metrics varied widely and were assessed on multiple levels. F1-scores for classification and detection tasks were 68.3%-94.3% and 42.8%-95.4%, respectively. Irrespective of the task, F1-scores were 68.3%-95.4% for professional cameras, 78.8%-87.6%, for intraoral cameras, and 42.8%-80% for smartphone cameras. Limited studies allowed assessing AI performance for lesions of different severity. CONCLUSION: Automatic detection of dental caries using AI may provide objective verification of clinicians' diagnoses and facilitate patient-clinician communication and teledentistry. Future studies should consider more robust study designs, employ comparable and standardized metrics, and focus on the severity of caries lesions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".