Machine Learning in Dentistry: A Scoping Review

Author:

Arsiwala-Scheppach Lubaina T.12ORCID,Chaurasia Akhilanand23ORCID,Müller Anne4ORCID,Krois Joachim12ORCID,Schwendicke Falk12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 14197 Berlin, Germany

2. ITU/WHO Focus Group AI on Health, Topic Group Dental Diagnostics and Digital Dentistry, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland

3. Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow 226003, India

4. Pharmacovigilance Institute (Pharmakovigilanz- und Beratungszentrum, PVZ) for Embryotoxicology, Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 13353 Berlin, Germany

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) is being increasingly employed in dental research and application. We aimed to systematically compile studies using ML in dentistry and assess their methodological quality, including the risk of bias and reporting standards. We evaluated studies employing ML in dentistry published from 1 January 2015 to 31 May 2021 on MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, and arXiv. We assessed publication trends and the distribution of ML tasks (classification, object detection, semantic segmentation, instance segmentation, and generation) in different clinical fields. We appraised the risk of bias and adherence to reporting standards, using the QUADAS-2 and TRIPOD checklists, respectively. Out of 183 identified studies, 168 were included, focusing on various ML tasks and employing a broad range of ML models, input data, data sources, strategies to generate reference tests, and performance metrics. Classification tasks were most common. Forty-two different metrics were used to evaluate model performances, with accuracy, sensitivity, precision, and intersection-over-union being the most common. We observed considerable risk of bias and moderate adherence to reporting standards which hampers replication of results. A minimum (core) set of outcome and outcome metrics is necessary to facilitate comparisons across studies.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 16 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3