ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Artificial Intelligence in Orofacial Pain: Diagnostic and Predictive Performance Across Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Orofacial pain (OFP) includes a broad spectrum of odontogenic and non-odontogenic conditions with overlapping clinical features that often limit diagnostic accuracy, driving increasing interest in artificial intelligence (AI) as a tool to enhance diagnostic precision and support clinical decision-making. A narrative review was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies (2016-2026) applying AI to the diagnosis, classification, or prediction of OFP in adults. Eligible studies reported at least two diagnostic performance metrics and were thematically grouped into odontogenic and non-odontogenic categories, the latter including musculoskeletal, neurovascular, and neuropathic pain. Twenty studies were included. Neurovascular pain, particularly migraine, showed the most consistent and highest diagnostic performance, likely due to the greater availability of structured clinical data and standardized diagnostic criteria. Musculoskeletal pain, especially temporomandibular disorders, also demonstrated high and reproducible performance. In contrast, odontogenic pain showed lower and more heterogeneous performance, with better results mainly in imaging-based models, while signal- and behavior-based approaches were less robust. Neuropathic pain exhibited moderate to high performance in selected radiomics studies, but overall results remained inconsistent due to phenotypic variability and limited objective biomarkers. Currently, AI shows promising potential in OFP diagnosis, especially for neurovascular and musculoskeletal pain, but clinical translation is limited by data heterogeneity and lack of validation. Progress in clinical practice depends on multimodal datasets and multicenter studies to ensure robust, generalizable tools.
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.