ReviewHealth science reports2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence Models for Detecting Odontogenic Keratocytes on CBCT Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Differentiating odontogenic keratocyst (OKC) from other radiolucent jaw lesions like ameloblastoma is clinically important but radiographically difficult. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) show promise for enhancing diagnosis using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). This study aims to systematically evaluate and meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of AI models in detecting OKCs on CBCT imaging. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines. Five electronic databases were searched through July 6, 2025. Studies employing AI models for OKC detection using CBCT were included. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Pooled estimates were computed using a random-effects model, with heterogeneity evaluated via I Results: Twelve studies were included. AI models demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy, characterized by a pooled sensitivity of 89% (95% CI: 79%-95%) and specificity of 92% (95% CI: 81%-97%), both exceeding 85%, along with a substantial diagnostic odds ratio (87.06) and a robust discriminative ability (AUC = 0.828). Deep learning (DL) models achieved higher sensitivity (91%) than machine learning (ML) models (86%), while ML models showed slightly higher specificity. Heterogeneity was substantial (I Conclusions: AI-based models, particularly CNN-based DL architectures, demonstrate clinically relevant diagnostic performance with high sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios, supporting their potential role as adjunctive tools in CBCT-based differentiation of OKCs from other odontogenic lesions.
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.