İçeriğe geç
akaturk Akademik ölçüm

Makale detayı · 2023 · article

Comparison of artificial intelligence vs. junior dentists’ diagnostic performance based on caries and periapical infection detection on panoramic images

Dergi Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery
OpenAlex Açık erişim · diamond Üst %10
Yıl2023
Atıf39OpenAlex
Atıf41Semantic Scholar · 2 etkili
Yüzdelik%98,5
FWCI8,771,00 = dünya ortalaması
Scopus (SJR)Q2
WoS (JCR)Q2

Veri kaynağı ayrımı

  • YÖKSİS dergi adıQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery
  • OpenAlexOpenAlex zenginleştirmesi (özet, atıf, konular)
  • Semantic Scholaratıf sayısı (OpenAlex ile birleştirilmez)

Özet

OpenAlex İngilizce

Background: artificial intelligence (AI) based on diagnostic capability. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance based on radiological diagnoses regarding caries and periapical infection detection by comparing AI software with junior dentists who have 1 or 2 years of experience, based on the valid determinations by specialist dentists. Methods: In the initial stage of the study, 2 specialist dentists evaluated the presence of caries and periapical lesions on 500 digital panoramic radiographs, and the detection time was recorded in seconds. In the second stage, 3 junior dentists and an AI software performed diagnoses on the same panoramic radiographs, and the diagnostic results and durations were recorded in seconds. Results: The AI and the three junior dentists, respectively, detected dental caries at a sensitivity (SEN) of 0.907, 0.889, 0.491, 0.907; a specificity (SPEC) of 0.760, 0.740, 0.454, 0.696; a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.693, 0.470, 0.155, 0.666; a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.505, 0.415, 0.275, 0.367 and a F1-score of 0.786, 0.615, 0.236, 0.768. The AI and the three junior dentists respectively detected periapical lesions at an SEN of 0.973, 0.962, 0.758, 0.958; a SPEC of 0.629, 0.421, 0.404, 0.621; a PPV of 0.861, 0.651, 0.312, 0.648; a NPV of 0.689, 0.673, 0.278, 0.546 and an F1-score of 0.914, 0.777, 0.442, 0.773. The AI software gave more accurate results, especially in detecting periapical lesions. On the other hand, in caries detection, the underdiagnosis rate was high for both AI and junior dentists. Conclusions: Regarding the evaluation time needed, AI performed faster, on average.

Konular

Atıflar

OpenAlex cited_by_count. WoS veya Scopus atıf sayısı değildir; o kaynaklar için ayrı kolon yoktur.

39atıfOpenAlex · cited_by_count (önbellek / veritabanı)

Yerel katalogda bu makaleye atıf yapan 11 yayın (OpenAlex referans eşleşmesi; tam dünya listesi değildir).

  1. 2024 Empowering Modern Dentistry: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Patient Care and Clinical Decision MakingAtıf 77 · OpenAlex
  2. 2025 Patients’ attitudes toward artificial intelligence in dentistry and their trust in dentistsAtıf 11 · OpenAlex
  3. 2025 Patients’ attitudes toward artificial intelligence in dentistry and their trust in dentistsAtıf 11 · OpenAlex
  4. 2025 Patients’ attitudes toward artificial intelligence in dentistry and their trust in dentistsAtıf 11 · OpenAlex
  5. 2025 Patients' attitudes toward artificial intelligence in dentistry and their trust in dentistsAtıf 11 · OpenAlex
  6. 2026 Comparative diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT large language models and expert clinicians in complex oral and maxillofacial diseasesAtıf 5 · OpenAlex
  7. 2026 Comparative diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT large language models and expert clinicians in complex oral and maxillofacial diseasesAtıf 5 · OpenAlex
  8. 2026 Deep Learning-Based Dental Caries Diagnosis on Panoramic Radiographies: Performance of YOLOv8 Versus Human ObserversAtıf 1 · OpenAlex
  9. 2026 Deep Learning-Based Classification of Zirconia and Metal-Supported Porcelain Fixed Restorations on Panoramic RadiographsAtıf 0 · OpenAlex
  10. 2026 Artificial Intelligence in Endodontic Diagnostics: Current Applications, Clinical Performance, Limitations, and Future Perspectives—A Narrative ReviewAtıf 0 · OpenAlex

Yazarlar

Yazar bilgisi yok.