OBJECTIVES: To compare detection patterns of 80 cephalometric landmarks identified by an automated identification system (AI) based on a recently proposed deep-learning method, the You-Only-Look-Once version 3 (YOLOv3), with those identified by human examiners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The YOLOv3 algorithm was implemented with custom modifications and trained on 1028 cephalograms. A total of 80 landmarks comprising two vertical reference points and 46 hard tissue and 32 soft tissue landmarks were identified. On the 283 test images, the same 80 landmarks were identified by AI and human examiners twice. Statistical analyses were conducted to detect whether any significant differences between AI and human examiners existed. Influence of image factors on those differences was also investigated. RESULTS: Upon repeated trials, AI always detected identical positions on each landmark, while the human intraexaminer variability of repeated manual detections demonstrated a detection error of 0.97 ± 1.03 mm. The mean detection error between AI and human was 1.46 ± 2.97 mm. The mean difference between human examiners was 1.50 ± 1.48 mm. In general, comparisons in the detection errors between AI and human examiners were less than 0.9 mm, which did not seem to be clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: AI showed as accurate an identification of cephalometric landmarks as did human examiners. AI might be a viable option for repeatedly identifying multiple cephalometric landmarks.
OBJECTIVES: To compare detection patterns of 80 cephalometric landmarks identified by an automated identification system (AI) based on a recently proposed deep-learning method, the You-Only-Look-Once version 3 (YOLOv3), with those identified by human examiners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The YOLOv3 algorithm was implemented with custom modifications and trained on 1028 cephalograms. A total of 80 landmarks comprising two vertical reference points and 46 hard tissue and 32 soft tissue landmarks were identified. On the 283 test images, the same 80 landmarks were identified by AI and human examiners twice. Statistical analyses were conducted to detect whether any significant differences between AI and human examiners existed. Influence of image factors on those differences was also investigated. RESULTS: Upon repeated trials, AI always detected identical positions on each landmark, while the human intraexaminer variability of repeated manual detections demonstrated a detection error of 0.97 ± 1.03 mm. The mean detection error between AI and human was 1.46 ± 2.97 mm. The mean difference between human examiners was 1.50 ± 1.48 mm. In general, comparisons in the detection errors between AI and human examiners were less than 0.9 mm, which did not seem to be clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: AI showed as accurate an identification of cephalometric landmarks as did human examiners. AI might be a viable option for repeatedly identifying multiple cephalometric landmarks.
Authors: Stig Isidor; Gabriele Di Carlo; Marie A Cornelis; Flemming Isidor; Paolo M Cattaneo Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 2.079