Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorGonca, Merve
dc.contributor.authorGül, Büşra Beşer
dc.contributor.authorSert, Mehmet Fatih
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-11T07:01:09Z
dc.date.available2024-09-11T07:01:09Z
dc.date.issued2024en_US
dc.identifier.citationGonca, M., Gul, B. B., & Sert, M. F. (2024). How successful is the CatBoost classifier in diagnosing different dental anomalies in patients via sella turcica and vertebral morphologic alteration? BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 24(1), 237. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02643-8en_US
dc.identifier.issn1472-6947
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02643-8
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11436/9329
dc.description.abstractBackground: To investigate how successfully the classification of patients with and without dental anomalies was achieved through four experiments involving different dental anomalies. Methods: Lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCRs) from 526 individuals aged between 14 and 22 years were included. Four experiments involving different dental anomalies were created. Experiment 1 included the total dental anomaly group and control group (CG). Experiment 2 only had dental agenesis and a CG. Experiment 3 consisted of only palatally impacted canines and the CG. Experiment 4 comprised patients with various dental defects (transposition, hypodontia, agenesis-palatally affected canine, peg-shaped laterally, hyperdontia) and the CG. Twelve sella measurements and assessments of the ponticulus posticus and posterior arch deficiency were given as input. The target was to distinguish between anomalies and controls. The CatBoost algorithm was applied to classify patients with and without dental anomalies. Results: In order from lowest to highest, the predictive accuracies of the experiments were as follows: experiment 4 < experiment 2 < experiment 3 < experiment 1. The sella area (SA) (mm2) was the most important variable in experiment 1. The most significant variable in prediction model of experiment 2 was sella height posterior (SHP) (mm). Sella area (SA) (mm2) was again the most relevant variable in experiment 3. The most important variable in experiment 4 was sella height median (SHM) (mm). Conclusions: Every prediction model from the four experiments prioritized different variables. These findings may suggest that related research should focus on specific traits from a diagnostic perspective.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectAlgorithmsen_US
dc.subjectMachine learninen_US
dc.subjectOrthodonticsen_US
dc.subjectTooth abnormalitiesen_US
dc.subjectTooth, impacteden_US
dc.titleHow successful is the CatBoost classifier in diagnosing different dental anomalies in patients via sella turcica and vertebral morphologic alteration?en_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentRTEÜ, Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Yüksekokulu, Spor Yöneticiliği Bölümüen_US
dc.contributor.institutionauthorGonca, Merve
dc.contributor.institutionauthorGül, Büşra Beşer
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12911-024-02643-8en_US
dc.identifier.volume24en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage237en_US
dc.relation.journalBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Makingen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster