Untersuchung der Auswertequalität kommerzieller Anbieter für KI-basierte FRS‑Analysen im Vergleich zu einem Experten-Goldstandard

Abstract

Abstract Purpose The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the accuracy of various skeletal and dental cephalometric parameters as produced by different commercial providers that make use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted automated cephalometric analysis and to compare their quality to a gold standard established by orthodontic experts. Methods Twelve experienced orthodontic examiners pinpointed 15 radiographic landmarks on a total of 50 cephalometric X‑rays. The landmarks were used to generate 9 parameters for orthodontic treatment planning. The “humans’ gold standard” was defined by calculating the median value of all 12 human assessments for each parameter, which in turn served as reference values for comparisons with results given by four different commercial providers of automated cephalometric analyses (DentaliQ.ortho [CellmatiQ GmbH, Hamburg, Germany], WebCeph [AssembleCircle Corp, Seongnam-si, Korea], AudaxCeph [Audax d.o.o., Ljubljana, Slovenia], CephX [Orca Dental AI, Herzliya, Israel]). Repeated measures analysis of variances (ANOVAs) were calculated and Bland–Altman plots were generated for comparisons. Results The results of the repeated measures ANOVAs indicated significant differences between the commercial providers’ predictions and the humans’ gold standard for all nine investigated parameters. However, the pairwise comparisons also demonstrate that there were major differences among the four commercial providers. While there were no significant mean differences between the values of DentaliQ.ortho and the humans’ gold standard, the predictions of AudaxCeph showed significant deviations in seven out of nine parameters. Also, the Bland–Altman plots demonstrate that a reduced precision of AI predictions must be expected especially for values attributed to the inclination of the incisors. Conclusion Fully automated cephalometric analyses are promising in terms of timesaving and avoidance of individual human errors. At present, however, they should only be used under supervision of experienced clinicians.