Cargando…

Evaluation of a multi-stage convolutional neural network-based fully automated landmark identification system using cone-beam computed tomography-synthesized posteroanterior cephalometric images

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of a multi-stage convolutional neural network (CNN) model-based automated identification system for posteroanterior (PA) cephalometric landmarks. METHODS: The multi-stage CNN model was implemented with a personal computer. A total of 430 PA-cephalograms synthesize...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Min-Jung, Liu, Yi, Oh, Song Hee, Ahn, Hyo-Won, Kim, Seong-Hun, Nelson, Gerald
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Association of Orthodontists 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7940808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33678623
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2021.51.2.77
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of a multi-stage convolutional neural network (CNN) model-based automated identification system for posteroanterior (PA) cephalometric landmarks. METHODS: The multi-stage CNN model was implemented with a personal computer. A total of 430 PA-cephalograms synthesized from cone-beam computed tomography scans (CBCT-PA) were selected as samples. Twenty-three landmarks used for Tweemac analysis were manually identified on all CBCT-PA images by a single examiner. Intra-examiner reproducibility was confirmed by repeating the identification on 85 randomly selected images, which were subsequently set as test data, with a two-week interval before training. For initial learning stage of the multi-stage CNN model, the data from 345 of 430 CBCT-PA images were used, after which the multi-stage CNN model was tested with previous 85 images. The first manual identification on these 85 images was set as a truth ground. The mean radial error (MRE) and successful detection rate (SDR) were calculated to evaluate the errors in manual identification and artificial intelligence (AI) prediction. RESULTS: The AI showed an average MRE of 2.23 ± 2.02 mm with an SDR of 60.88% for errors of 2 mm or lower. However, in a comparison of the repetitive task, the AI predicted landmarks at the same position, while the MRE for the repeated manual identification was 1.31 ± 0.94 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Automated identification for CBCT-synthesized PA cephalometric landmarks did not sufficiently achieve the clinically favorable error range of less than 2 mm. However, AI landmark identification on PA cephalograms showed better consistency than manual identification.