ScienceMed®

Automatic cephalometric landmark identification with artificial intelligence: An umbrella review of systematic reviews

Medicina e Tecnologia
Imagem de arquivo, ilustrativa — não é do estudo. Pastilha de silício de um processador Intel Pentium II ao microscópio. Martijn Boer · domínio público · Wikimedia Commons

Revisão sistemáticaNível 1 · Evidência consolidadaJournal of dentistry8 mai 202479 citações

Salvar

Resumo original em inglês

O que aconteceu

The transition from manual to automatic cephalometric landmark identification has not yet reached a consensus for clinical application in orthodontic diagnosis. The present umbrella review aimed to assess artificial intelligence (AI) performance in automatic 2D and 3D cephalometric landmark identification.

A combination of free text words and MeSH keywords pooled by boolean operators: Automa* AND cephalo* AND ("artificial intelligence" OR "machine learning" OR "deep learning" OR "learning").

A search strategy without a timeframe setting was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and LILACS.

O que encontraram

The study protocol followed the PRISMA guidelines and the PICO question was formulated according to the aim of the article. The database search led to the selection of 15 articles that were assessed for eligibility in full-text. Finally, 11 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed according to the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool.

Por que isso importa

AI was not able to identify the various cephalometric landmarks with the same accuracy. Since most of the included studies' conclusions were based on a wrong 2 mm cut-off difference between the AI automatic landmark location and that allocated by human operators, future research should focus on refining the most powerful architectures to improve the clinical relevance of AI-driven automatic cephalometric analysis.

Despite a progressively improved performance, AI has exceeded the recommended magnitude of error for most cephalometric landmarks. Moreover, AI automatic landmarking on 3D CBCT appeared to be less accurate compared to that on 2D X-rays. To date, AI-driven cephalometric landmarking still requires the final supervision of an experienced orthodontist.

Resumo publicado sob licença CC BY. A tradução para o português ainda não chegou a este estudo.

O estudo original

Automatic cephalometric landmark identification with artificial intelligence: An umbrella review of systematic reviews

Alessandro Polizzi, Rosalia Leonardi

Descritores MeSH

  • Cephalometry
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Anatomic Landmarks
  • Machine Learning
  • Humans
  • Systematic Reviews as Topic
  • Imaging, Three-Dimensional

Veja também

Estudos relacionados