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!
container_end_page 616
container_issue 5
container_start_page 610
container_title ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY
container_volume 131
creator Pauwels, Ruben
Brasil, Danieli Moura
Yamasaki, Mayra Cristina
Jacobs, Reinhilde
Bosmans, Hilde
Freitas, Deborah Queiroz
Haiter-Neto, Francisco
description 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.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>kuleuven_FZOIL</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_kuleuven_dspace_123456789_673057</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>123456789_673057</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-kuleuven_dspace_123456789_6730573</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjUFOwzAQRb0AqVXpHWbHAlVK4jQBdqgCcQD20dSZtKaubc3YKWfhtBjEAfo3X_rz_p8btWyautm0baUXai3yWRV1Vd21zVJ9v3CykzUWHVifyDl7IG8IpsAwUiKTbPAQJojEFqM1BXQkJRQoh9JhDFxCxtGGA2M8yjPswjkiWynEntKFyIMJfg4u_84V2lPmP0uXwCcB9CMc8xnLq70Qz8Ryp24ndELrf1-p-7fXj9375pQd5Zn8MEpEQ0Pd6Hbb9Y9PQ9fratvrlXq4jhzSV9LX7_4AuGhrKA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Institutional Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Artificial intelligence for detection of periapical lesions on intraoral radiographs: Comparison between convolutional neural networks and human observers</title><source>Lirias (KU Leuven Association)</source><creator>Pauwels, Ruben ; Brasil, Danieli Moura ; Yamasaki, Mayra Cristina ; Jacobs, Reinhilde ; Bosmans, Hilde ; Freitas, Deborah Queiroz ; Haiter-Neto, Francisco</creator><creatorcontrib>Pauwels, Ruben ; Brasil, Danieli Moura ; Yamasaki, Mayra Cristina ; Jacobs, Reinhilde ; Bosmans, Hilde ; Freitas, Deborah Queiroz ; Haiter-Neto, Francisco</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2212-4403</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC</publisher><ispartof>ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY, 2021-05, Vol.131 (5), p.610-616</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,780,27860</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/673057$$EView_record_in_KU_Leuven_Association$$FView_record_in_$$GKU_Leuven_Association$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pauwels, Ruben</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brasil, Danieli Moura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamasaki, Mayra Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, Reinhilde</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosmans, Hilde</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freitas, Deborah Queiroz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haiter-Neto, Francisco</creatorcontrib><title>Artificial intelligence for detection of periapical lesions on intraoral radiographs: Comparison between convolutional neural networks and human observers</title><title>ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY</title><description>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.</description><issn>2212-4403</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>FZOIL</sourceid><recordid>eNqNjUFOwzAQRb0AqVXpHWbHAlVK4jQBdqgCcQD20dSZtKaubc3YKWfhtBjEAfo3X_rz_p8btWyautm0baUXai3yWRV1Vd21zVJ9v3CykzUWHVifyDl7IG8IpsAwUiKTbPAQJojEFqM1BXQkJRQoh9JhDFxCxtGGA2M8yjPswjkiWynEntKFyIMJfg4u_84V2lPmP0uXwCcB9CMc8xnLq70Qz8Ryp24ndELrf1-p-7fXj9375pQd5Zn8MEpEQ0Pd6Hbb9Y9PQ9fratvrlXq4jhzSV9LX7_4AuGhrKA</recordid><startdate>202105</startdate><enddate>202105</enddate><creator>Pauwels, Ruben</creator><creator>Brasil, Danieli Moura</creator><creator>Yamasaki, Mayra Cristina</creator><creator>Jacobs, Reinhilde</creator><creator>Bosmans, Hilde</creator><creator>Freitas, Deborah Queiroz</creator><creator>Haiter-Neto, Francisco</creator><general>ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC</general><scope>FZOIL</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202105</creationdate><title>Artificial intelligence for detection of periapical lesions on intraoral radiographs: Comparison between convolutional neural networks and human observers</title><author>Pauwels, Ruben ; Brasil, Danieli Moura ; Yamasaki, Mayra Cristina ; Jacobs, Reinhilde ; Bosmans, Hilde ; Freitas, Deborah Queiroz ; Haiter-Neto, Francisco</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-kuleuven_dspace_123456789_6730573</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pauwels, Ruben</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brasil, Danieli Moura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamasaki, Mayra Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, Reinhilde</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosmans, Hilde</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freitas, Deborah Queiroz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haiter-Neto, Francisco</creatorcontrib><collection>Lirias (KU Leuven Association)</collection><jtitle>ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pauwels, Ruben</au><au>Brasil, Danieli Moura</au><au>Yamasaki, Mayra Cristina</au><au>Jacobs, Reinhilde</au><au>Bosmans, Hilde</au><au>Freitas, Deborah Queiroz</au><au>Haiter-Neto, Francisco</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Artificial intelligence for detection of periapical lesions on intraoral radiographs: Comparison between convolutional neural networks and human observers</atitle><jtitle>ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY</jtitle><date>2021-05</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>131</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>610</spage><epage>616</epage><pages>610-616</pages><issn>2212-4403</issn><abstract>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.</abstract><pub>ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC</pub><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 2212-4403
ispartof ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY, 2021-05, Vol.131 (5), p.610-616
issn 2212-4403
language eng
recordid cdi_kuleuven_dspace_123456789_673057
source Lirias (KU Leuven Association)
title Artificial intelligence for detection of periapical lesions on intraoral radiographs: Comparison between convolutional neural networks and human observers
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T14%3A55%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-kuleuven_FZOIL&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Artificial%20intelligence%20for%20detection%20of%20periapical%20lesions%20on%20intraoral%20radiographs:%20Comparison%20between%20convolutional%20neural%20networks%20and%20human%20observers&rft.jtitle=ORAL%20SURGERY%20ORAL%20MEDICINE%20ORAL%20PATHOLOGY%20ORAL%20RADIOLOGY&rft.au=Pauwels,%20Ruben&rft.date=2021-05&rft.volume=131&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=610&rft.epage=616&rft.pages=610-616&rft.issn=2212-4403&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ckuleuven_FZOIL%3E123456789_673057%3C/kuleuven_FZOIL%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true