MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414982402 · doi:10.3390/oral5040076

Artificial Intelligence to Detect Obstructive Sleep Apnea from Craniofacial Images: A Narrative Review

2025· article· en· W4414982402 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Satoru Tsuiki, Akifumi Furuhashi, Eiki Ito, Tatsuya Fukuda

Bibliographic record

VenueOral · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsObstructive sleep apneaInterpretabilityPolysomnographyCraniofacialNarrative reviewAirwaySleep apneaReferral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a chronic disorder associated with serious health consequences, yet many cases remain undiagnosed due to limited access to standard diagnostic tools such as polysomnography. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled the development of deep convolutional neural networks that analyze craniofacial radiographs, particularly lateral cephalograms, to detect anatomical risk factors for OSA. The goal of this approach is not to replace polysomnography but to identify individuals with a high suspicion of OSA at the primary care or dental level and to guide them toward timely and appropriate diagnostic evaluation. Current studies have demonstrated that AI can recognize patterns of oropharyngeal crowding and anatomical imbalance of the upper airway with high accuracy, often exceeding manual assessment. Furthermore, interpretability analyses suggest that AI focuses on clinically meaningful regions, including the tongue, mandible, and upper airway. Unexpected findings such as predictive signals from outside the airway also suggest AI may detect subtle features associated with age or obesity. Ultimately, integrating AI with cephalometric imaging may support early screening and referral for polysomnography, improving care pathways and reducing delays in OSA treatment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.324 · 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.

Study designOther design
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 venueOralSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207