Employing CNN ensemble models in classifying dental caries using oral photographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental caries is arguably the most persistent dental condition that affects most people over their lives. Carious lesions are commonly diagnosed by dentists using clinical and visual examination along with oral radiographs. In many circumstances, dental caries is challenging to detect with photography and might be mistaken as shadows for various reasons, including poor photo quality. However, with the introduction of Artificial Intelligence and robotic systems in dentistry, photographs can be a helpful tool in oral epidemiological research for the assessment of dental caries prevalence among the population. It can be used particularly to create a new automated approach to calculate DMF (Decay, Missing, Filled) index score. In this paper, an autonomous diagnostic approach for detecting dental cavities in photos is developed using deep learning algorithms and ensemble methods. The proposed technique employs a set of pretrained models including Xception, VGG16, VGG19, and DenseNet121 to extract essential characteristics from photographs and to classify images as either normal or caries. Then, two ensemble learning methods, E- majority and E-sum, are employed based on majority voting and sum rule to boost the performances of the individual pretrained model. Experiments are conducted on 50 images with data augmentation for normal and caries images, the employed E-majority and E-sum achieved an accuracy score of 96% and 97%, respectively. The obtained results demonstrate the superiority of the proposed ensemble framework in the detection of caries. Furthermore, this framework is a step toward constructing a fully automated, efficient decision support system to be used in the dentistry area.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".