Yazar "Urkmez, Elif Seyda" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 2 / 2
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Comparison of artificial intelligence vs. junior dentists' diagnostic performance based on caries and periapical infection detection on panoramic images
    (Ame Publishing Company, 2023) Gunec, Huseyin Gurkan; Urkmez, Elif Seyda; Danaci, Aleyna; Dilmac, Eda; Onay, Huseyin Hamza; Aydin, Kader Cesur
    Background: There is information missing in the literature about the comparison of dentists vs. artificial intelligence (AI) based on diagnostic capability. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance based on radiological diagnoses regarding caries and periapical infection detection by comparing AI software with junior dentists who have 1 or 2 years of experience, based on the valid determinations by specialist dentists. Methods: In the initial stage of the study, 2 specialist dentists evaluated the presence of caries and periapical lesions on 500 digital panoramic radiographs, and the detection time was recorded in seconds. In the second stage, 3 junior dentists and an AI software performed diagnoses on the same panoramic radiographs, and the diagnostic results and durations were recorded in seconds. Results: The AI and the three junior dentists, respectively, detected dental caries at a sensitivity (SEN) of 0.907, 0.889, 0.491, 0.907; a specificity (SPEC) of 0.760, 0.740, 0.454, 0.696; a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.693, 0.470, 0.155, 0.666; a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.505, 0.415, 0.275, 0.367 and a F1-score of 0.786, 0.615, 0.236, 0.768. The AI and the three junior dentists respectively detected periapical lesions at an SEN of 0.973, 0.962, 0.758, 0.958; a SPEC of 0.629, 0.421, 0.404, 0.621; a PPV of 0.861, 0.651, 0.312, 0.648; a NPV of 0.689, 0.673, 0.278, 0.546 and an F1-score of 0.914, 0.777, 0.442, 0.773. The AI software gave more accurate results, especially in detecting periapical lesions. On the other hand, in caries detection, the underdiagnosis rate was high for both AI and junior dentists. Conclusions: Regarding the evaluation time needed, AI performed faster, on average.
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Comparison of artificial intelligence vs. junior dentists' diagnostic performance based on caries and periapical infection detection on panoramic images
    (Ame Publishing Company, 2023) Gunec, Hueseyin Gurkan; Urkmez, Elif Seyda; Danaci, Aleyna; Dilmac, Eda; Onay, Hueseyin Hamza; Aydin, Kader Cesur
    Background: There is information missing in the literature about the comparison of dentists vs. artificial intelligence (AI) based on diagnostic capability. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance based on radiological diagnoses regarding caries and periapical infection detection by comparing AI software with junior dentists who have 1 or 2 years of experience, based on the valid determinations by specialist dentists. Methods: In the initial stage of the study, 2 specialist dentists evaluated the presence of caries and periapical lesions on 500 digital panoramic radiographs, and the detection time was recorded in seconds. In the second stage, 3 junior dentists and an AI software performed diagnoses on the same panoramic radiographs, and the diagnostic results and durations were recorded in seconds. Results: The AI and the three junior dentists, respectively, detected dental caries at a sensitivity (SEN) of 0.907, 0.889, 0.491, 0.907; a specificity (SPEC) of 0.760, 0.740, 0.454, 0.696; a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.693, 0.470, 0.155, 0.666; a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.505, 0.415, 0.275, 0.367 and a F1-score of 0.786, 0.615, 0.236, 0.768. The AI and the three junior dentists respectively detected periapical lesions at an SEN of 0.973, 0.962, 0.758, 0.958; a SPEC of 0.629, 0.421, 0.404, 0.621; a PPV of 0.861, 0.651, 0.312, 0.648; a NPV of 0.689, 0.673, 0.278, 0.546 and an F1-score of 0.914, 0.777, 0.442, 0.773. The AI software gave more accurate results, especially in detecting periapical lesions. On the other hand, in caries detection, the underdiagnosis rate was high for both AI and junior dentists. Conclusions: Regarding the evaluation time needed, AI performed faster, on average.