Artificial intelligence for detection of periapical lesions on intraoral radiographs: Comparison between convolutional neural networks and human observers

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with the performance of human observers for the detection of simulated periapical lesions on periapical radiographs. STUDY DESIGN: Ten sockets were prepared in bovine ribs. Periapical d...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY 2021-05, Vol.131 (5), p.610-616
Hauptverfasser: Pauwels, Ruben, Brasil, Danieli Moura, Yamasaki, Mayra Cristina, Jacobs, Reinhilde, Bosmans, Hilde, Freitas, Deborah Queiroz, Haiter-Neto, Francisco
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with the performance of human observers for the detection of simulated periapical lesions on periapical radiographs. STUDY DESIGN: Ten sockets were prepared in bovine ribs. Periapical defects of 3 sizes were sequentially created. Periapical radiographs were acquired of each socket with no lesion and with each lesion size with a photostimulable storage phosphor system. Radiographs were evaluated with no filter and with 6 image filter settings. A CNN architecture was set up using Keras-TensorFlow. Separate CNNs were evaluated for randomly sampled training/validation data and for data split up by socket (5-fold cross-validation) and filter (7-fold cross-validation). CNN performance on validation data was compared with that of 3 oral radiologists for sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC). RESULTS: Using random sampling, the CNN showed perfect accuracy for the validation data. When data were split up by socket, the mean sensitivity, specificity, and ROC-AUC values were 0.79, 0.88, and 0.86, respectively; when split up by filter, they were 0.87, 0.98, and 0.93, respectively. For radiologists, the values were 0.58, 0.83, and 0.75, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CNNs show promise in periapical lesion detection. The pretrained CNN model yielded in this study can be used for further training on larger samples and/or clinical radiographs.
ISSN:2212-4403