MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411114098 · doi:10.7759/s44389-025-03812-0

Assessment of Children's Dental Fear and Anxiety Using Deep Learning Techniques

2025· article· en· W4411114098 on OpenAlexaff
Rojin Adabdokht, Ida Kornerup, Fabiana T. Almeida, Hollis Lai

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus Journal of Computer Science. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyDental fearPsychologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background About one-third of children face dental fear and anxiety, jeopardizing treatment outcomes. This study develops deep learning algorithms to automate drawing analysis, addressing the limitations of subjective and time-intensive manual assessments. Methods Two deep learning systems were developed. In the pilot study, drawings were manually labeled using the Child Drawing: Hospital score sheet. The first system used a two-step classification, focusing on human figures. A ResNet-18 model categorized drawings into high or low-average anxiety, while YOLO-v5 detected human figures, and YOLO-v8 classified those in low-average anxiety drawings. The second approach evaluated layout characteristics using pixel value calculations and scored color attributes with k-means clustering. A two-step deep learning process assessed human figure features: YOLO-v5 detected human figures and recognized faces, while YOLO-v8 classified faces as happy or unhappy. Final anxiety levels were determined by the combined feature scores. Accuracy and precision were reported for classifiers and object detectors, respectively. Results The first approach showed promising results, with the ResNet-18 classifier achieving a testing accuracy of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.878-0.982), the object detector achieving precision of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.531-0.749), and across five-fold cross-validation, the final classifier achieving a mean test accuracy of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.627, 0.6966). Confidence intervals were computed using the t-distribution with 4 degrees of freedom. Since the testing set was too small, a normal distribution assumption for the testing set was unrealistic. Therefore, a five-fold cross-validation was performed. The second approach achieved a final accuracy of 0.76, with individual features scoring a moderate accuracy of around 0.60. Conclusion This study demonstrates the potential of artificial intelligence to automate children’s dental fear and anxiety assessments through drawing analysis. Practical Implications: The developed algorithms can be used to screen children's dental anxiety, aiding clinicians in managing anxiety effectively, understanding patient concerns, and improving communication with children with linguistic or cognitive barriers.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus Journal of Computer Science.Same topicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia TechniquesFrench-language works237,207