Dataset Information

Machine Learning and Intelligent Diagnostics in Dental and Orofacial Pain Management: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The study explored the clinical influence, effectiveness, limitations, and human comparison outcomes of machine learning in diagnosing (1) dental diseases, (2) periodontal diseases, (3) trauma and neuralgias, (4) cysts and tumors, (5) glandular disorders, and (6) bone and temporomandibular joint as possible causes of dental and orofacial pain.

Method

Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science (all databases) were searched by 2 reviewers until 29^th October 2020. Articles were screened and narratively synthesized according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines based on predefined eligibility criteria. Articles that made direct reference test comparisons to human clinicians were evaluated using the MI-CLAIM checklist. The risk of bias was assessed by JBI-DTA critical appraisal, and certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Information regarding the quantification method of dental pain and disease, the conditional characteristics of both training and test data cohort in the machine learning, diagnostic outcomes, and diagnostic test comparisons with clinicians, where applicable, were extracted.

Results

34 eligible articles were found for data synthesis, of which 8 articles made direct reference comparisons to human clinicians. 7 papers scored over 13 (out of the evaluated 15 points) in the MI-CLAIM approach with all papers scoring 5+ (out of 7) in JBI-DTA appraisals. GRADE approach revealed serious risks of bias and inconsistencies with most studies containing more positive cases than their true prevalence in order to facilitate machine learning. Patient-perceived symptoms and clinical history were generally found to be less reliable than radiographs or histology for training accurate machine learning models. A low agreement level between clinicians training the models was suggested to have a negative impact on the prediction accuracy. Reference comparisons found nonspecialized clinicians with less than 3 years of experience to be disadvantaged against trained models.

Conclusion

Machine learning in dental and orofacial healthcare has shown respectable results in diagnosing diseases with symptomatic pain and with improved future iterations and can be used as a diagnostic aid in the clinics. The current review did not internally analyze the machine learning models and their respective algorithms, nor consider the confounding variables and factors responsible for shaping the orofacial disorders responsible for eliciting pain.

SUBMITTER: Farook TH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8093041 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPressure injury (PI) is a common and preventable problem, yet it is a challenge for at least two reasons. First, the nurse shortage is a worldwide phenomenon. Second, the majority of nurses have insufficient PI-related knowledge. Machine learning (ML) technologies can contribute to lessening the burden on medical staff by improving the prognosis and diagnostic accuracy of PI. To the best of our knowledge, there is no existing systematic review that evaluates how the current ML technologies are being used in PI management.ObjectiveThe objective of this review was to synthesize and evaluate the literature regarding the use of ML technologies in PI management, and identify their strengths and weaknesses, as well as to identify improvement opportunities for future research and practice.MethodsWe conducted an extensive search on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Wanfang database, the VIP database, and the China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to identify relevant articles. Searches were performed in June 2020. Two independent investigators conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST).ResultsA total of 32 articles met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of those articles (38%) reported using ML technologies to develop predictive models to identify risk factors, 11 (34%) reported using them in posture detection and recognition, and 9 (28%) reported using them in image analysis for tissue classification and measurement of PI wounds. These articles presented various algorithms and measured outcomes. The overall risk of bias was judged as high.ConclusionsThere is an array of emerging ML technologies being used in PI management, and their results in the laboratory show great promise. Future research should apply these technologies on a large scale with clinical data to further verify and improve their effectiveness, as well as to improve the methodological quality.

Project description:BackgroundChest pain is amongst the most common reason for presentation to the emergency department (ED). There are many causes of chest pain, and it is important for the emergency physician to quickly and accurately diagnose life threatening causes such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Multiple clinical decision tools have been developed to assist clinicians in risk stratifying patients with chest. There is growing recognition that machine learning (ML) will have a significant impact on the practice of medicine in the near future and may assist with diagnosis and risk stratification. This systematic review aims to evaluate how ML has been applied to adults presenting to the ED with undifferentiated chest pain and assess if ML models show improved performance when compared to physicians or current risk stratification techniques.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic review of journal articles that applied a ML technique to an adult patient presenting to an emergency department with undifferentiated chest pain. Multiple databases were searched from inception through to November 2020. In total, 3361 articles were screened, and 23 articles were included. We did not conduct a metanalysis due to a high level of heterogeneity between studies in both their methods, and reporting. The most common primary outcomes assessed were diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (12 studies), and prognosis of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (6 studies). There were 14 retrospective studies and 5 prospective studies. Four studies reported the development of a machine learning model retrospectively then tested it prospectively. The most common machine learning methods used were artificial neural networks (14 studies), random forest (6 studies), support vector machine (5 studies), and gradient boosting (2 studies). Multiple studies achieved high accuracy in both the diagnosis of AMI in the ED setting, and in predicting mortality and composite outcomes over various timeframes. ML outperformed existing risk stratification scores in all cases, and physicians in three out of four cases. The majority of studies were single centre, retrospective, and without prospective or external validation. There were only 3 studies that were considered low risk of bias and had low applicability concerns. Two studies reported integrating the ML model into clinical practice.ConclusionsResearch on applications of ML for undifferentiated chest pain in the ED has been ongoing for decades. ML has been reported to outperform emergency physicians and current risk stratification tools to diagnose AMI and predict MACE but has rarely been integrated into practice. Many studies assessing the use of ML in undifferentiated chest pain in the ED have a high risk of bias. It is important that future studies make use of recently developed standardised ML reporting guidelines, register their protocols, and share their datasets and code. Future work is required to assess the impact of ML model implementation on clinical decision making, patient orientated outcomes, and patient and physician acceptability.Trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number: CRD42020184977.

Project description:Background: Chronic pain is a significant global health issue. For most individuals with chronic pain, biomedical treatments do not provide adequate relief. Given the evidence that neurophysiological abnormalities are associated with pain, it is reasonable to consider treatments that target these factors, such as neurofeedback (NF). The primary objectives of this review were to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding: (1) the different types of NF and NF protocols that have been evaluated for pain management; (2) the evidence supporting each NF type and protocol; (3) if targeted brain activity changes occur with NF training; and (4) if such brain activity change is associated with improvements on treatment outcomes. Methods: Inclusion criteria were intentionally broad to encompass every empirical study using NF in relation to pain. We considered all kinds of NF, including both electroencephalogram- (EEG-) and functional magnetic resonance imagining- (fMRI-) based. We searched the following databases from inception through September 2019: Pubmed, Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO. The search strategy consisted of a combination of key terms referring to all NF types and pain conditions (e.g., neurofeedback, rt-fMRI-NF, BOLD, pain, migraine). Results: A total of 6,552 citations were retrieved; 24 of these that were included in the review. Most of the studies were of moderate quality, included a control condition and but did not include a follow-up. They focused on studying pain intensity (83%), pain frequency, and other variables (fatigue, sleep, depression) in samples of adults (n = 7-71) with headaches, fibromyalgia and other pain conditions. Most studies (79%) used EEG-based NF. A wide variety of NF types and protocols have been used for pain management aiming to either increase, decrease or regulate brain activity in certain areas theoretically associated with pain. Conclusions: Given the generally positive results in the studies reviewed, the findings indicate that NF procedures have the potential for reducing pain and improving other related outcomes in individuals with chronic pain. However, the current evidence does not provide definitive conclusions or allow for reliable recommendations on which protocols or methods of administration may be the most effective. These findings support the need for continued - but higher quality - research in this area.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pain is a common condition with a significant physical, psychosocial, and economic impact. Due to enormous progress in mobile device technology as well as the increase in smartphone ownership in the general population, mobile apps can be used to monitor patients with pain and support them in pain management. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of smartphone or computer tablet apps in the management of patients with pain. METHODS:In December 2017, a literature search was performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and PsycINFO. In addition, a bibliography search was conducted. We included studies with at least 20 participants per arm that evaluated the effects of apps on smartphones or computer tablets on improvement in pain. RESULTS:A total of 15 studies with 1962 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 4 studies examined the effect of mobile apps on pain management in an in-clinic setting and 11 in an out-clinic setting. The majority of the original studies reported beneficial effects of the use of a pain app. Severity of pain decreased in most studies where patients were using an app compared with patients not using an app. Other outcomes, such as worst pain or quality of life showed improvements in patients using an app. Due to heterogeneity between the original studies-patient characteristics, app content, and study setting-a synthesis of the results by statistical methods was not performed. CONCLUSIONS:Apps for pain management may be beneficial for patients, particularly in an out-clinic setting. Studies have shown that pain apps are workable and well liked by patients and health care professionals. There is no doubt that in the near future, mobile technologies will develop further. Medicine could profit from this development as indicated by our results, but there is a need for more scientific inputs. It is desirable to know which elements of apps or additional devices and tools may improve usability and help patients in pain management.

Project description:Widely-prescribed prodrug opioids (e.g., hydrocodone) require conversion by liver enzyme CYP-2D6 to exert their analgesic effects. The most commonly prescribed antidepressant, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), inhibits CYP-2D6 activity and therefore may reduce the effectiveness of prodrug opioids. We used a machine learning approach to identify patients prescribed a combination of SSRIs and prodrug opioids postoperatively and to examine the effect of this combination on postoperative pain control. Using EHR data from an academic medical center, we identified patients receiving surgery over a 9-year period. We developed and validated natural language processing (NLP) algorithms to extract depression-related information (diagnosis, SSRI use, symptoms) from structured and unstructured data elements. The primary outcome was the difference between preoperative pain score and postoperative pain at discharge, 3-week and 8-week time points. We developed computational models to predict the increase or decrease in the postoperative pain across the 3 time points by using the patient's EHR data (e.g. medications, vitals, demographics) captured before surgery. We evaluate the generalizability of the model using 10-fold cross-validation method where the holdout test method is repeated 10 times and mean area-under-the-curve (AUC) is considered as evaluation metrics for the prediction performance. We identified 4,306 surgical patients with symptoms of depression. A total of 14.1% were prescribed both an SSRI and a prodrug opioid, 29.4% were prescribed an SSRI and a non-prodrug opioid, 18.6% were prescribed a prodrug opioid but were not on SSRIs, and 37.5% were prescribed a non-prodrug opioid but were not on SSRIs. Our NLP algorithm identified depression with a F1 score of 0.95 against manual annotation of 300 randomly sampled clinical notes. On average, patients receiving prodrug opioids had lower average pain scores (p<0.05), with the exception of the SSRI+ group at 3-weeks postoperative follow-up. However, SSRI+/Prodrug+ had significantly worse pain control at discharge, 3 and 8-week follow-up (p < .01) compared to SSRI+/Prodrug- patients, whereas there was no difference in pain control among the SSRI- patients by prodrug opioid (p>0.05). The machine learning algorithm accurately predicted the increase or decrease of the discharge, 3-week and 8-week follow-up pain scores when compared to the pre-operative pain score using 10-fold cross validation (mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.87, 0.81, and 0.69, respectively). Preoperative pain, surgery type, and opioid tolerance were the strongest predictors of postoperative pain control. We provide the first direct clinical evidence that the known ability of SSRIs to inhibit prodrug opioid effectiveness is associated with worse pain control among depressed patients. Current prescribing patterns indicate that prescribers may not account for this interaction when choosing an opioid. The study results imply that prescribers might instead choose direct acting opioids (e.g. oxycodone or morphine) in depressed patients on SSRIs.