Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2025
The influence of a deep learning tool on the performance of oral and maxillofacial radiologists in the detection of apical radiolucencies.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hamdan Manal H, Uribe Sergio E, Tuzova Lyudmila, Tuzoff Dmitry, Badr Zaid, Mol André, Tyndall Donald A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the impact of a deep learning model on oral radiologists' ability to detect periapical radiolucencies on periapical radiographs. The secondary objective was to conduct a regression analysis to evaluate the effects of years of experience, time to diagnose, and specialty.
METHODS: This study used an annotated dataset and a beta version of a deep learning model (Denti.AI). The testing subset comprised 68 intraoral periapical radiographs confirmed with cone-beam computed tomography for the presence/absence of apical radiolucencies. Four oral radiologists participated in a cross-over reading scenario, analysing the radiographs under 2 conditions: initially without AI assistance and later with AI predictions. The study evaluated reader performance using Alternative Free-Response Receiver Operating Characteristic - Area Under the Curve (AFROC-AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and Receiver Operating Characteristic-Area Under the Curve (ROC-AUC) per case. It also assessed sensitivity per lesion. Regression analysis investigated how experience, time spent on images, and specialty influenced reader performance.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in AFROC-AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and ROC-AUC. Regression analysis identified factors influencing diagnostic outcomes: unaided reading significantly prolonged diagnostic time (β = 12, 95% CI, 11-13, P < 0.001), while radiologists' professional status was positively associated with diagnostic accuracy (β = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.00-0.04, P = 0.015). These findings underscore the impact of AI on diagnostic efficiency and the critical role of radiologists' experience in diagnostic accuracy.
CONCLUSION: AI did not significantly enhance radiologists' overall diagnostic accuracy. However, it showed potential to enhance efficiency, particularly advantageous for non-expert clinicians. The expertise of radiologists remains vital for accuracy, underscoring the complementary role of AI in dental diagnostics.
METHODS: This study used an annotated dataset and a beta version of a deep learning model (Denti.AI). The testing subset comprised 68 intraoral periapical radiographs confirmed with cone-beam computed tomography for the presence/absence of apical radiolucencies. Four oral radiologists participated in a cross-over reading scenario, analysing the radiographs under 2 conditions: initially without AI assistance and later with AI predictions. The study evaluated reader performance using Alternative Free-Response Receiver Operating Characteristic - Area Under the Curve (AFROC-AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and Receiver Operating Characteristic-Area Under the Curve (ROC-AUC) per case. It also assessed sensitivity per lesion. Regression analysis investigated how experience, time spent on images, and specialty influenced reader performance.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in AFROC-AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and ROC-AUC. Regression analysis identified factors influencing diagnostic outcomes: unaided reading significantly prolonged diagnostic time (β = 12, 95% CI, 11-13, P < 0.001), while radiologists' professional status was positively associated with diagnostic accuracy (β = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.00-0.04, P = 0.015). These findings underscore the impact of AI on diagnostic efficiency and the critical role of radiologists' experience in diagnostic accuracy.
CONCLUSION: AI did not significantly enhance radiologists' overall diagnostic accuracy. However, it showed potential to enhance efficiency, particularly advantageous for non-expert clinicians. The expertise of radiologists remains vital for accuracy, underscoring the complementary role of AI in dental diagnostics.