Computers in biology and medicine · 2024
Artificial intelligence vs. semi-automated segmentation for assessment of dental periapical lesion volume index score: A cone-beam CT study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Boubaris Matthew, Cameron Andrew, Manakil Jane, George Roy
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Cone beam computed tomography periapical volume index (CBCTPAVI) is a categorisation tool to assess periapical lesion size in three-dimensions and predict treatment outcomes. This index was determined using a time-consuming semi-automatic segmentation technique. This study compared artificial intelligence (AI) with semi-automated segmentation to determine AI's ability to accurately determine CBCTPAVI score.
METHODS: CBCTPAVI scores for 500 tooth roots were determined using both the semi-automatic segmentation technique in three-dimensional imaging analysis software (Mimics Research™) and AI (Diagnocat™). A confusion matrix was created to compare the CBCTPAVI score by the AI with the semi-automatic segmentation technique. Evaluation metrics, precision, recall, F1-score (2×precision×recallprecision+recall), and overall accuracy were determined.
RESULTS: In 84.4 % (n = 422) of cases the AI classified CBCTPAVI score the same as the semi-automated technique. AI was unable to classify any lesion as index 1 or 2, due to its limitation in small volume measurement. When lesions classified as index 1 and 2 by the semi-automatic segmentation technique were excluded, the AI demonstrated levels of precision, recall and F1-score, all above 0.85, for indices 0, 3-6; and accuracy over 90 %.
CONCLUSIONS: Diagnocat™ with its ability to determine CBCTPAVI score in approximately 2 min following upload of the CBCT could be an excellent and efficient tool to facilitate better monitoring and assessment of periapical lesions in everyday clinical practice and/or radiographic reporting. However, to assess three-dimensional healing of smaller lesions (with scores 1 and 2), further advancements in AI technologies are needed.
METHODS: CBCTPAVI scores for 500 tooth roots were determined using both the semi-automatic segmentation technique in three-dimensional imaging analysis software (Mimics Research™) and AI (Diagnocat™). A confusion matrix was created to compare the CBCTPAVI score by the AI with the semi-automatic segmentation technique. Evaluation metrics, precision, recall, F1-score (2×precision×recallprecision+recall), and overall accuracy were determined.
RESULTS: In 84.4 % (n = 422) of cases the AI classified CBCTPAVI score the same as the semi-automated technique. AI was unable to classify any lesion as index 1 or 2, due to its limitation in small volume measurement. When lesions classified as index 1 and 2 by the semi-automatic segmentation technique were excluded, the AI demonstrated levels of precision, recall and F1-score, all above 0.85, for indices 0, 3-6; and accuracy over 90 %.
CONCLUSIONS: Diagnocat™ with its ability to determine CBCTPAVI score in approximately 2 min following upload of the CBCT could be an excellent and efficient tool to facilitate better monitoring and assessment of periapical lesions in everyday clinical practice and/or radiographic reporting. However, to assess three-dimensional healing of smaller lesions (with scores 1 and 2), further advancements in AI technologies are needed.