ReviewImaging science in dentistry2026
Accuracy of deep learning in the detection of carotid calcifications on cone-beam computed tomography: A systematic review.
Review 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This systematic review aimed to describe the diagnostic performance of AI-based models in identifying carotid calcifications using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, IEEE Xplore, SciELO, and LILACS databases to identify relevant studies published up to 2025 that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence or deep learning systems in detecting carotid artery calcifications using CBCT. Grey literature sources were systematically searched. A qualitative synthesis was conducted for the included studies, followed by a diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis using sensitivity and specificity data. Analyses were performed using bivariate random-effects models (Diagnostic Random-Effects Model). Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test, the I Results: A total of 529 records were identified. No additional studies were retrieved from the grey literature. Application of inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in the selection of four studies for qualitative synthesis. Conclusion: Despite variations in convolutional neural network (CNN) model architectures, all studies demonstrated that deep learning algorithms applied to CBCT achieve high performance levels in detecting carotid calcifications. The meta-analysis demonstrated that CNN-based models have high diagnostic potential for detecting carotid artery calcifications on CBCT. Although CBCT does not replace gold-standard diagnostic modalities, its use may represent a supportive tool for early screening and clinical referral. The expansion of datasets and the standardization of image acquisition protocols and quality are recommended.
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.