Suppr超能文献

人工智能在近龋检测中的成本效益。

Cost-effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence for Proximal Caries Detection.

机构信息

Department of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Department of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

出版信息

J Dent Res. 2021 Apr;100(4):369-376. doi: 10.1177/0022034520972335. Epub 2020 Nov 16.

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,  < 0.05). AI was significantly more sensitive than dentists (0.75 vs. 0.36 [0.19-0.65];  = 0.006), while its specificity was not significantly lower (0.83 vs. 0.91 [0.69-0.98];  > 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.

摘要

人工智能(AI)可辅助牙医进行影像评估,例如龋齿检测。然而,目前尚未评估将 AI 应用于牙科诊断的广泛健康和成本影响。我们比较了在口内片上使用 AI 与不使用 AI 进行近中面龋检测的成本效益。我们使用 U-Net 全卷积神经网络,对 3293、252 和 141 张口内片进行了训练、验证和测试,4 名经验丰富的牙医在这些口内片上标记了龋损(参考测试)。将病变分为初始病变(E1/E2/D1,假定无腔,如发现则接受龋齿渗透治疗)和进展性病变(D2/D3,假定有空腔,如发现则接受修复性治疗)。采用 Markov 模型模拟真阳性和假阳性、真阴性和假阴性检测的后果,以及在患者的整个生命周期内的后续决策。采用德国混合支付者视角。我们的健康结果是保留的牙齿年数。成本以 2020 年欧元计量。进行了蒙特卡罗微模拟以及单变量和概率敏感性分析。量化了增量成本效益比(ICER)和在不同支付意愿阈值下的成本效益可接受性。AI 的准确率为 0.80;牙医的平均准确率明显较低,为 0.71(最小值-最大值:0.61-0.78, < 0.05)。AI 的敏感性明显高于牙医(0.75 比 0.36 [0.19-0.65]; = 0.006),而特异性并不明显较低(0.83 比 0.91 [0.69-0.98]; > 0.05)。在基本情况下,AI 更有效(平均保留 64 [2.5%-97.5%:61-65]年)且成本更低(298 [244-367] 欧元),而不使用 AI 的评估则保留 62 [59-64] 年(322 [257-394] 欧元)。ICER 为-13.9 欧元/年(即 AI 在提高效果的同时节省了资金)。在大多数(>77%)情况下,AI 更具成本效益且更有效。应用 AI 进行龋齿检测可能具有成本效益,主要是因为较少的病变未被发现。值得注意的是,这种成本效益需要牙医对发现的早期病变进行非修复性治疗。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5cfa/7985854/ce83693ee14f/10.1177_0022034520972335-fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验