6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cost-effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence for Proximal Caries Detection

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Artificial intelligence (AI) can assist dentists in image assessment, for example, caries detection. The wider health and cost impact of employing AI for dental diagnostics has not yet been evaluated. We compared the cost-effectiveness of proximal caries detection on bitewing radiographs with versus without AI. U-Net, a fully convolutional neural network, had been trained, validated, and tested on 3,293, 252, and 141 bitewing radiographs, respectively, on which 4 experienced dentists had marked carious lesions (reference test). Lesions were stratified for initial lesions (E1/E2/D1, presumed noncavitated, receiving caries infiltration if detected) and advanced lesions (D2/D3, presumed cavitated, receiving restorative care if detected). A Markov model was used to simulate the consequences of true- and false-positive and true- and false-negative detections, as well as the subsequent decisions over the lifetime of patients. A German mixed-payers perspective was adopted. Our health outcome was tooth retention years. Costs were measured in 2020 euro. Monte-Carlo microsimulations and univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the cost-effectiveness acceptability at different willingness-to-pay thresholds were quantified. AI showed an accuracy of 0.80; dentists’ mean accuracy was significantly lower at 0.71 (minimum–maximum: 0.61–0.78, P < 0.05). AI was significantly more sensitive than dentists (0.75 vs. 0.36 [0.19–0.65]; P = 0.006), while its specificity was not significantly lower (0.83 vs. 0.91 [0.69–0.98]; P > 0.05). In the base-case scenario, AI was more effective (tooth retention for a mean 64 [2.5%–97.5%: 61–65] y) and less costly (298 [244–367] euro) than assessment without AI (62 [59–64] y; 322 [257–394] euro). The ICER was −13.9 euro/y (i.e., AI saved money at higher effectiveness). In the majority (>77%) of all cases, AI was less costly and more effective. Applying AI for caries detection is likely to be cost-effective, mainly as fewer lesions remain undetected. Notably, this cost-effectiveness requires dentists to manage detected early lesions nonrestoratively.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Deep learning.

          Deep learning allows computational models that are composed of multiple processing layers to learn representations of data with multiple levels of abstraction. These methods have dramatically improved the state-of-the-art in speech recognition, visual object recognition, object detection and many other domains such as drug discovery and genomics. Deep learning discovers intricate structure in large data sets by using the backpropagation algorithm to indicate how a machine should change its internal parameters that are used to compute the representation in each layer from the representation in the previous layer. Deep convolutional nets have brought about breakthroughs in processing images, video, speech and audio, whereas recurrent nets have shone light on sequential data such as text and speech.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Global, Regional, and National Prevalence, Incidence, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for Oral Conditions for 195 Countries, 1990–2015: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors

            The Global Burden of Disease 2015 study aims to use all available data of sufficient quality to generate reliable and valid prevalence, incidence, and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) estimates of oral conditions for the period of 1990 to 2015. Since death as a direct result of oral diseases is rare, DALY estimates were based on years lived with disability, which are estimated only on those persons with unmet need for dental care. We used our data to assess progress toward the Federation Dental International, World Health Organization, and International Association for Dental Research’s oral health goals of reducing the level of oral diseases and minimizing their impact by 2020. Oral health has not improved in the last 25 y, and oral conditions remained a major public health challenge all over the world in 2015. Due to demographic changes, including population growth and aging, the cumulative burden of oral conditions dramatically increased between 1990 and 2015. The number of people with untreated oral conditions rose from 2.5 billion in 1990 to 3.5 billion in 2015, with a 64% increase in DALYs due to oral conditions throughout the world. Clearly, oral diseases are highly prevalent in the globe, posing a very serious public health challenge to policy makers. Greater efforts and potentially different approaches are needed if the oral health goal of reducing the level of oral diseases and minimizing their impact is to be achieved by 2020. Despite some challenges with current measurement methodologies for oral diseases, measurable specific oral health goals should be developed to advance global public health.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.

              Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting. The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years. Copyright © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Dent Res
                J Dent Res
                JDR
                spjdr
                Journal of Dental Research
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                0022-0345
                1544-0591
                16 November 2020
                April 2021
                : 100
                : 4
                : 369-376
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [2 ]Department of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [3 ]Department of Orthodontics, Dentofacial Orthopedics and Pedodontics, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [4 ]Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [5 ]Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, India
                Author notes
                [*]F. Schwendicke, Department of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, Berlin, 14197, Germany. Email: falk.schwendicke@ 123456charite.de
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1223-1669
                Article
                10.1177_0022034520972335
                10.1177/0022034520972335
                7985854
                33198554
                893316ca-6bc1-4b5c-93a5-e99f69d54682
                © International & American Associations for Dental Research 2020

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Categories
                Research Reports
                Clinical
                Custom metadata
                ts1

                caries diagnosis/prevention,computer simulation,dental,decision making,economic evaluation,radiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article