Journal of endodontics · 2024
External Validation of the Effect of the Combined Use of Object Detection for the Classification of the C-Shaped Canal Configuration of the Mandibular Second Molar in Panoramic Radiographs: A Multicenter Study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеВалидационное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Yang Sujin, Kim Kee-Deog, Kise Yoshitaka, Nozawa Michihito, Mori Mizuho, Takata Natsuho, Katsumata Akitoshi, Ariji Yoshiko, Park Wonse, Ariji Eiichiro
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effect of the combined use of object detection for the classification of the C-shaped canal anatomy of the mandibular second molar in panoramic radiographs and to perform an external validation on a multicenter dataset.
METHODS: The panoramic radiographs of 805 patients were collected from 4 institutes across two countries. The CBCT data of the same patients were used as "Ground-truth". Five datasets were generated: one for training and validation, and 4 as external validation datasets. Workflow 1 used manual cropping to prepare the image patches of mandibular second molars, and then classification was performed using EfficientNet. Workflow 2 used two combined methods with a preceding object detection (YOLOv7) performed for automated image patch formation, followed by classification using EfficientNet. Workflow 3 directly classified the root canal anatomy from the panoramic radiographs using the YOLOv7 prediction outcomes. The classification performance of the 3 workflows was evaluated and compared across 4 external validation datasets.
RESULTS: For Workflows 1, 2, and 3, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were 0.863, 0.861, and 0.876, respectively, for the AGU dataset; 0.935, 0.945, and 0.863, respectively, for the ASU dataset; 0.854, 0.857, and 0.849, respectively, for the ODU dataset; and 0.821, 0.797, and 0.831, respectively, for the ODU low-resolution dataset. No significant differences existed between the AUC values of Workflows 1, 2, and 3 across the 4 datasets.
CONCLUSIONS: The deep learning systems of the 3 workflows achieved significant accuracy in predicting the C-shaped canal in mandibular second molars across all test datasets.
METHODS: The panoramic radiographs of 805 patients were collected from 4 institutes across two countries. The CBCT data of the same patients were used as "Ground-truth". Five datasets were generated: one for training and validation, and 4 as external validation datasets. Workflow 1 used manual cropping to prepare the image patches of mandibular second molars, and then classification was performed using EfficientNet. Workflow 2 used two combined methods with a preceding object detection (YOLOv7) performed for automated image patch formation, followed by classification using EfficientNet. Workflow 3 directly classified the root canal anatomy from the panoramic radiographs using the YOLOv7 prediction outcomes. The classification performance of the 3 workflows was evaluated and compared across 4 external validation datasets.
RESULTS: For Workflows 1, 2, and 3, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were 0.863, 0.861, and 0.876, respectively, for the AGU dataset; 0.935, 0.945, and 0.863, respectively, for the ASU dataset; 0.854, 0.857, and 0.849, respectively, for the ODU dataset; and 0.821, 0.797, and 0.831, respectively, for the ODU low-resolution dataset. No significant differences existed between the AUC values of Workflows 1, 2, and 3 across the 4 datasets.
CONCLUSIONS: The deep learning systems of the 3 workflows achieved significant accuracy in predicting the C-shaped canal in mandibular second molars across all test datasets.