MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408742026 · doi:10.1101/2025.03.18.25324199

Image-based Mandibular and Maxillary Parcellation and Annotation using Computer Tomography (IMPACT): A Deep Learning-based Clinical Tool for Orodental Dose Estimation and Osteoradionecrosis Assessment

2025· preprint· en· W4408742026 on OpenAlexaff
Laia Humbert‐Vidan, Austin H. Castelo, Renjie He, Lisanne V. van Dijk, Dong Joo Rhee, Congjun Wang, He Wang, Kareem A. Wahid, Sonali Joshi, Parshan Gerafian, Natalie West, Zaphanlene Kaffey, Sarah Mirbahaeddin, Jaqueline Curiel, Amal Shekha, Praise Oderinde, Alaa Mohamed Shawky Ali, Andrew Hope, Erin Watson, Ruth Wesson-Aponte, Steven J. Frank, Carly E. A. Barbon, Kristy K. Brock, Mark S. Chambers, Muhammad F. Walji, Katherine A. Hutcheson, Stephen Y. Lai, Clifton D. Fuller, Mohamed A. Naser, Amy C. Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersZonMw
KeywordsOsteoradionecrosisAnnotationComputed tomographyArtificial intelligenceDentistryMedicineEstimationOrthodonticsComputer scienceRadiation therapyRadiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Accurate delineation of orodental structures on radiotherapy CT images is essential for dosimetric assessments and dental decisions. We propose a deep-learning auto-segmentation framework for individual teeth and mandible/maxilla sub-volumes aligned with the ClinRad ORN staging system. Methods: Mandible and maxilla sub-volumes were manually defined, differentiating between alveolar and basal regions, and teeth were labelled individually. For each task, a DL segmentation model was independently trained. A Swin UNETR-based model was used for the mandible sub-volumes. For the smaller structures (e.g., teeth and maxilla sub-volumes) a two-stage segmentation model first used the ResUNet to segment the entire teeth and maxilla regions as a single ROI that was then used to crop the image input of the Swin UNETR. In addition to segmentation accuracy and geometric precision, a dosimetric comparison was made between manual and model-predicted segmentations. Results: Segmentation performance varied across sub-volumes - mean Dice values of 0.85 (mandible basal), 0.82 (mandible alveolar), 0.78 (maxilla alveolar), 0.80 (upper central teeth), 0.69 (upper premolars), 0.76 (upper molars), 0.76 (lower central teeth), 0.70 (lower premolars), 0.71 (lower molars) - and exhibited limited applicability in segmenting teeth and sub-volumes often absent in the data. Only the maxilla alveolar central sub-volume showed a statistically significant dosimetric difference (Bonferroni-adjusted p-value = 0.02). Conclusion: We present a novel DL-based auto-segmentation framework of orodental structures, enabling spatial localization of dose-related differences in the jaw. This tool enhances image-based bone injury detection, including ORN, and improves clinical decision-making in radiation oncology and dental care for head and neck cancer patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207