MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404724065 · doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2024.102058

DEEP LEARNING-DRIVEN SEGMENTATION OF DENTAL IMPLANTS AND PERI-IMPLANTITIS DETECTION IN ORTHOPANTOMOGRAPHS: A NOVEL DIAGNOSTIC TOOL

2024· article· en· W4404724065 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

VenueJournal of Evidence Based Dental Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeri-implantitisMedicineDentistryOrthodonticsImplantSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Dental implants are well-established for restoring partial or complete tooth loss, with osseointegration being essential for their long-term success. Peri-implantitis, marked by inflammation and bone loss, compromises implant longevity. Current diagnostic methods for peri-implantitis face challenges such as subjective interpretation and time consumption. Our deep learning-based approach aims to address these limitations by providing a more accurate and efficient solution. This study aims to develop a deep learning-based approach for segmenting dental implants and detecting peri-implantitis in orthopantomographs (OPGs), enhancing diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After applying exclusion criteria, 7696 OPGs were used in the study, which was ethically authorized by the Near East University Ethics Review Board. Using the Python-implemented U-Net architecture, the DICOM-formatted images were segmented and converted into PNG files. The classification model used a convolutional neural network (CNN) for distinguishing between healthy implants and those affected by peri-implantitis, leveraging features extracted from the segmented regions to enhance diagnostic accuracy. The model was trained for 500 epochs using the Adam optimizer, with the dataset split into training (70%), validation (15%), and test (15%) sets. Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and accuracy were used to assess segmentation performance. Three medical professionals used precision, recall, and F1-score to assess the classification model after segmentation, which determined whether implants were showing signs of peri-implantitis. RESULTS: The segmentation model achieved a test accuracy of 0.999, Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) of 0.986, and Intersection over Union (IoU) of 0.974. For classification, out of 3693 implants, 638 were clinically identified as having peri-implantitis. The model correctly identified 576 of these, with 165 false positives. Performance metrics included a precision of 0.777, recall of 0.903, and F1-score of 0.835. CONCLUSION: The deep learning-based approach for segmentation and classification of dental implants and peri-implantitis in OPGs is highly effective, providing reliable tools for enhancing clinical diagnosis and treatment planning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.297 · 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