ArticleImaging science in dentistry2026
Side- and patient-based performance of a deep learning system based on the results of individual detection of carotid artery calcifications on panoramic radiographs.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The present study aimed to develop 2 deep learning (DL) systems incorporating detection functions for the diagnosis of carotid artery calcifications (CACs) on panoramic radiographs and to compare their diagnostic performances using CAC-based, side-based, and patient-based evaluations. Materials and Methods: Panoramic radiographs from 290 patients with CACs and 290 control patients without CACs were used to develop 2 detection models: one designed to detect individual CACs across the entire radiograph (System 1) and another designed to detect CACs within the limited bilateral cervical areas (System 2). CAC-based performance was evaluated using recall, precision, and F1-score. Side-based and patient-based performances were assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: For System 1, CAC-based recall, precision, and F1-score were 0.81, 0.68, and 0.74, respectively. For System 2, the corresponding values were 0.90, 0.67, and 0.77. Side-based sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.87, 0.80, and 0.83 for System 1, and 0.93, 0.84, and 0.89 for System 2. Patient-based sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.93, 0.73, and 0.83 for System 1, and 0.95, 0.70, and 0.83 for System 2. Although a relatively large number of false positives were observed in CAC-based assessments, side-based and patient-based performances showed improvement. Conclusion: Side-based and patient-based performances were sufficient when calculated on the basis of CAC-based evaluations for diagnosing CACs on panoramic radiographs. When conducting studies of this type, performance assessments should include side-based and patient-based evaluations in addition to CAC-based analyses.
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.