Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41546040›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2026

An explainable and transparent machine learning approach for predicting dental caries: a cross-national validation study.

Otso Tirkkonen, Henna Tiensuu, Elina Väyrynen, Jaakko Suutala, Ville Vuollo, Marja-Liisa Laitala, Saujanya Karki

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Otso TirkkonenResearch Unit of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Henna TiensuuBiomimetics and Intelligent Systems Group, Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Elina VäyrynenResearch Unit of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Jaakko SuutalaBiomimetics and Intelligent Systems Group, Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Ville VuolloResearch Unit of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Marja-Liisa LaitalaResearch Unit of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Saujanya KarkiResearch Unit of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. saujanya.karki@oulu.fi.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been a notable increase in artificial intelligence (AI) studies in dentistry. However, the inadequate use of proper validation methods has led to overly optimistic performance metrics of machine learning (ML) models. External validation provides evidence of a ML model's performance with independent datasets and is crucial for generalizability.

methodsWe developed Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) models to detect dental caries using easy-to-collect questionnaire data. ML model training was conducted using cross-validation nested resampling with a holdout test set, utilizing NHANES datasets (n = 6070). Performance of the trained model was tested using external data from the Northern Finland Birth Cohorts (NFBC1966 and NFBC1986; n = 3616). To enhance interpretability, beeswarm plots were constructed to visualize variable importance.

resultsThe ML model demonstrated acceptable performance in predicting dental caries on the internal dataset, with an area under the operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.785 (95% CI 0.756-0.813). However, the model encountered difficulties in identifying participants with dental caries, as shown by its poor sensitivity of 0.391, despite achieving a high specificity of 0.919. When applied to the external dataset, the ML model encountered significant challenges, with the AUC dropping to 0.550 (95% CI 0.532-0.569), sensitivity decreasing to 0.053, and specificity slightly improving to 0.974. Important variables identified by the model were self-rated condition of teeth and gums, presence of missing teeth, financial status, and time since last dental visit.

conclusionThe performance of our ML model during external validation degraded notably compared to the internal validation. However, the XAI methodology exhibited great potential to be used in the future for individualized dental caries risk assessment.

Indexed as

Dental CariesMachine LearningBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsClassification AlgorithmsFinlandHumansPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsArtificial IntelligenceCohorts StudiesDentistryOral HealthRisk FactorsValidation Study

Identifiers

PMID41546040
PMCPMC12896046

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.