Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 41775582

Artificial intelligence in treatment prediction for skeletal Class III malocclusion: A systematic review.

Abstract

In skeletal Class III patients, treatment options range from orthodontics to orthognathic surgery. Choosing the optimal approach requires a comprehensive clinical evaluation, which may be supported by AI tools. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of AI models in predicting the need for orthognathic surgery and in identifying predictors influencing treatment decisions. A PRISMA-guided electronic database search (PubMed, Web of Science; 2009-2024; English/French) was performed to identify studies using machine learning (ML) or deep learning (DL) on cephalometric and clinical data. After screening and assessment for eligibility, 15 studies were critically appraised. Model performance was summarized using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC). ML algorithms (particularly Random Forest and XGBoost) and DL models (ResNet-based convolutional neural networks (CNNs)) achieved high accuracy for predicting surgical need. Frequently selected predictors included Wits appraisal, ANB angle, the maxillomandibular ratio (Mx/Md), overjet, and the divergence of the lower gonial angle. AI methods show promise for assisting treatment decisions in Class III malocclusion, with Random Forest and XGBoost performing well on tabular cephalometric data and CNNs on imaging. Larger, multicentre datasets and external validation are needed to improve reliability, address bias, and support clinical implementation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

R Hasbi, A Brotons, M Le Gall, D Dorison-Bachet, R Urena, C Philip-Alliez. 2026-03-02. Artificial intelligence in treatment prediction for skeletal Class III malocclusion: A systematic review.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2026.02.016

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Machine learning vs. traditional methods for predicting postoperative cardiac complications after non-cardiac surgery: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate prediction of peri-operative cardiac complications is critical to optimise pre-operative decision-making. Traditional risk prediction scores, such as the Revised Cardiac Risk Index, show only modest discrimination. Machine learning can model complex, non-linear relationships but their predictive performance compared with traditional scores remains unclear. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcome was postoperative adverse cardiac events following non-cardiac surgery. Prediction models were assessed relative to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index. As many studies evaluated multiple versions of each model type, the highest performing ('best version') and lowest performing ('worst version') results were analysed. Models were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). RESULTS: Thirteen studies evaluating 54 models and 927,113 patients were included. Machine learning approaches generally outperformed traditional risk scores. Automated machine learning ranked highest (SUCRA 96.6) showed the greatest improvement in the best version analysis (mean difference (MD) 0.28 (95%CrI 0.16-0.40)) and remained superior in the sensitivity analysis (MD 0.30 (95%CrI 0.14-0.45)). Gradient boosting models showed superior performance over the Revised Cardiac Risk Index across analysis (best version: MD 0.20 (95%CrI 0.14-0.26), worst version: MD 0.18 (95%CrI 0.12-0.25), SUCRA 82.4). The Gupta Perioperative Risk for Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest score outperformed the Revised Cardiac Risk Index in the best version analysis (MD 0.16 (95%CrI 0.01-0.32)). Between-study heterogeneity was low. None of the included studies externally validated their machine learning models and only six were judged to be at low risk of bias. DISCUSSION: Most machine learning models showed better discrimination than traditional risk scores, with automated machine learning and gradient boosting models ranking highest. However, study quality, calibration reporting and absence of external validation limit immediate clinical adoption. Prospective, multicentre evaluation is required before integration of these models into peri-operative practice.

Humans

Improving insurance deduction identification: a hybrid artificial intelligence model using machine learning and expert systems.

PURPOSE: Financial challenges in healthcare systems worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries like Iran, have increased hospitals' reliance on insurance reimbursements. Unrecognized insurance deductions often cause severe financial shortages, making efficient deduction management crucial. This study aimed to design a hybrid intelligent system for identifying and predicting insurance deductions by combining machine learning and expert system frameworks. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A mixed-methods design was applied in four stages. First, a scoping review identified the causes and patterns of insurance deductions. Second, interviews with 15 insurance experts produced a validated checklist and a dataset from inpatient billing records. Third, using the CRISP-DM methodology, machine learning algorithms were developed and tested in SPSS Modeler alongside a fuzzy expert system developed in MATLAB. Finally, the model was validated using the holdout method. FINDINGS: Four categories of deduction drivers were identified: service provision, registration errors, document submission issues, and revenue conversion processes. The CHAID decision tree outperformed other algorithms with a 99% precision rate and the lowest Mean Absolute Error (9.43). A brief assessment of potential overfitting was conducted to ensure that the CHAID model's high accuracy was interpreted cautiously and supported by the validation results. The fuzzy expert system with validated rules was adaptable for deduction classification, especially for cases unsuitable for quantitative modeling. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The hybrid model improves detection and prevention of deductions, offering actionable insights for hospital administrators, insurers, and policymakers. Its implementation can enhance hospital information systems, streamline claims processing, and optimize revenue management amid financial constraints.

Machine Learning

Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Nursing Clinical Decision-Making: An Umbrella Review.

AIM: To describe contemporary peer-reviewed literature on artificial intelligence in nurses' clinical decision-making. METHODS: An umbrella review of literature reviews. DATA SOURCES: Four major databases were searched for reviews published between 2019 and 2024. RESULTS: Sixteen literature reviews reported on 965 nursing artificial intelligence primary studies. The studies focused on technology development and emerging performance evaluations, whilst real-world testing or implementation in nursing clinical settings was rare. Rigorous comparative analyses were lacking. While artificial intelligence demonstrates promise in decision-making, challenges such as a lack of controlled studies, algorithmic bias, limited reproducibility and insufficient clinical trials hinder its practical impact. Ethical concerns, transparency and patient data privacy issues pose barriers to AI integration in nursing practice. Ethical and legal guidelines for patient privacy are needed and should be taught along with AI literacy training for nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence has the potential to enhance clinical nursing decision-making, although evidence is limited by too few examples of nurse participation during development. Underutilisation in administrative nursing functions hinders implementation. Nurses should assume a central role in the design and development of AI applications to ensure that these technologies address the realities of nursing practice. With such improvements, artificial intelligence can transform nursing practice, improve nurses' clinical decision-making and ultimately enhance consumer healthcare outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: No Patient or Public Involvement. REPORTING METHOD: While there is no reporting checklist for umbrella reviews, the PRISMA guide for systematic reviews was followed.

Artificial Intelligence