ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Machine Learning Models for Identifying Dental Pain in Adolescents.
Article in International dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From Algorithmic Performance to Clinical Translation: Translational Readiness of Imaging-Based Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry-A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to identify dental pain using machine learning (ML) algorithms in Brazilian adolescents for public health screening purposes.
methodsData from 2 cross-sectional waves of the Brazilian National Survey of School Health (PeNSE) in 2015 and 2019 were used (schoolchildren aged 11 to 18). The outcome was dental pain in the last 6 months. Co-variables were 53 variables, including demographic, socioeconomic, and behavioral characteristics. The 2015 dataset was split (80:20) into training and test sets, while the 2019 dataset was used as a temporal external validation set. Nine ML models were evaluated.
resultsA total of 259,833 adolescents (97.0% of the sample) were included. Dental pain prevalence was 19.5% (95% CI, 19.2-19.8). Extra Trees (ET) was the model with the best metrics in the test and external validation sets. ET showed an AUC = 0.64 (95% CI, 0.63-0.65) and a Recall = 0.57 in the test, and AUC = 0.62 (95% CI, 0.62-0.63) and Recall = 0.57 in the external test, indicating a modest ability to discriminate adolescents with dental pain and to identify approximately 57 out of 100 affected individuals. Fairness estimations show lower accuracy for males, but a higher recall for this group. The model shows a higher accuracy for white adolescents but a lower recall for this group. The Shapley values showed that sex, alcohol consumption, and family violence were the most important variables in the algorithm's identification process.
conclusionThis study shows the potential of ML to identify dental pain in adolescents. Modest predictive performance and fairness limitations highlight the need for improvements before widespread adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.