Machine-learning algorithms for dental caries detection vs Different machine-learning algorithms for caries prediction: Post-Streptococcus mutans prediction accuracy
The review reported 99% accuracy for post-Streptococcus mutans prediction in Javed et al. (Ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Machine-learning algorithms for dental caries detection vs Different machine-learning algorithms for caries prediction Post-Streptococcus mutans prediction accuracy · Dental images of human beings · Saudi Arabia, Javed et al., 2019; feedforward backpropagation ANN The review reported 99% accuracy for post-Streptococcus mutans prediction in Javed et al. (Ungraded). Uses of Different Machine Learning Algorithms for Diagnosis of Dental Caries. (2022) All outcomes | Accuracy 99 | 1 study · 45 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uses of Different Machine Learning Algorithms for Diagnosis of Dental Caries. 2022 All outcomes | Not specified | 17 | Not applicable |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.