Objectives The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the accuracy of automated landmarking using deep learning in comparison with manual tracing for cephalometric analysis of 3D medical images. Methods PubMed/Medline, IEEE Xplore, Scopus and ArXiv electronic databases were searched. Selection criteria were: ex vivo and in vivo volumetric data images suitable for 3D landmarking (Problem), a minimum of five automated landmarking performed by deep learning method (Intervention), manual landmarking (Comparison), and mean accuracy, in mm, between manual and automated landmarking (Outcome). QUADAS-2 was adapted for quality analysis. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that reported as outcome mean values and standard deviation of the difference (error) between manual and automated landmarking. Linear regression plots were used to analyze correlations between mean accuracy and year of publication. Results The initial electronic screening yielded 252 papers published between 2020 and 2022. A total of 15 studies were included for the qualitative synthesis, whereas 11 studies were used for the meta-analysis. Overall random effect model revealed a mean value of 2.44 mm, with a high heterogeneity (I-2 = 98.13%, tau(2) = 1.018, p-value < 0.001); risk of bias was high due to the presence of issues for several domains per study. Meta-regression indicated a significant relation between mean error and year of publication (p value = 0.012). Conclusion Deep learning algorithms showed an excellent accuracy for automated 3D cephalometric landmarking. In the last two years promising algorithms have been developed and improvements in landmarks annotation accuracy have been done.

Accuracy of automated 3D cephalometric landmarks by deep learning algorithms: systematic review and meta-analysis

Baldini, Benedetta;Baselli, Giuseppe;
2023-01-01

Abstract

Objectives The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the accuracy of automated landmarking using deep learning in comparison with manual tracing for cephalometric analysis of 3D medical images. Methods PubMed/Medline, IEEE Xplore, Scopus and ArXiv electronic databases were searched. Selection criteria were: ex vivo and in vivo volumetric data images suitable for 3D landmarking (Problem), a minimum of five automated landmarking performed by deep learning method (Intervention), manual landmarking (Comparison), and mean accuracy, in mm, between manual and automated landmarking (Outcome). QUADAS-2 was adapted for quality analysis. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that reported as outcome mean values and standard deviation of the difference (error) between manual and automated landmarking. Linear regression plots were used to analyze correlations between mean accuracy and year of publication. Results The initial electronic screening yielded 252 papers published between 2020 and 2022. A total of 15 studies were included for the qualitative synthesis, whereas 11 studies were used for the meta-analysis. Overall random effect model revealed a mean value of 2.44 mm, with a high heterogeneity (I-2 = 98.13%, tau(2) = 1.018, p-value < 0.001); risk of bias was high due to the presence of issues for several domains per study. Meta-regression indicated a significant relation between mean error and year of publication (p value = 0.012). Conclusion Deep learning algorithms showed an excellent accuracy for automated 3D cephalometric landmarking. In the last two years promising algorithms have been developed and improvements in landmarks annotation accuracy have been done.
2023
Deep learning
Landmark
Maxillofacial
Orthodontics
Three-dimensional imaging
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2023 Serafin et al..pdf

accesso aperto

: Publisher’s version
Dimensione 804.53 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
804.53 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11311/1249484
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 10
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact