The Reliability of Cephalometric Tracing Using AI

The Reliability of Cephalometric Tracing Using AI PDF Author: Emmanuel Suissa
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0

Get Book Here

Book Description
Introduction: The objective of this study is to compare the difference between manual cephalometric analysis and automatic analysis by artificial intelligence to confirm the reliability of the latter. Our research hypothesis is that the manual technique is the most reliable of the methods and is still considered the gold standard. Method: A total of 99 lateral cephalometric radiographs were collected in this study. Manual technique (MT) and automatic localization by artificial intelligence (AI) tracings were performed for all radiographs. The localization of 29 commonly used landmarks were compared between both groups. Mean radial error (MRE) and a successful detection rate (SDR) of 2mm were used to compare both groups. AudaxCeph software version 6.2.57.4225 (Audax d.o.o., Ljubljana, Slovenia) was used for both manual and AI analysis. Results: The MRE and SDR for the inter-examinator reliability test were 0.87 ± 0.61mm and 95% respectively. For the comparison between the manual technique MT and landmarking with artificial intelligence AI, the MRE and SDR for all landmarks were 1.48 ± 1.42mm and 78% respectively. When dental landmarks are excluded, the MRE decreases to 1.33 ± 1.39mm and the SDR increases to 84%. When only hard tissue landmarks are included (excluding soft tissue and dental points) the MRE decreases further to 1.25 ± 1.09mm and the SDR increases to 85%. When only soft tissue landmarks are included the MRE increases to 1.68 ± 1.89mm and the SDR decreases to 78%. Conclusion: The software performed similarly to what was previously reported in literature for software that use analogous modeling framework. Comparing the software's landmarking to manual landmarking our results reveal that the manual landmarking resulted in higher accuracy. The software operated very well for hard tissue points, but its accuracy went down for soft and dental tissue. Our conclusion is this technology shows great promise for application in clinical settings under the doctor's supervision.