Cost-effectiveness of managing cavitated primary molar caries lesions:A randomized trial in Germany

The Hall Technique (HT), Non-Restorative Cavity Control (NRCC) and conventional carious tissue removal and restoration (CR) are strategies for managing cavitated caries lesions in primary molars. A randomized controlled three-arm parallel group trial in a university clinic in Germany was used to measure the cost-effectiveness of these strategies. 142 children (HT: 40; NRCC: 44; CR: 58) were followed over a mean 2.5 years. A German healthcare perspective was chosen. The primary outcome was estimated molar survival; secondary outcomes were not needing extraction, not having pain or needing endodontic treatment/extraction, or not needing any re-intervention at all. Initial, maintenance and endodontic/restorative/extraction re-treatment costs were derived from fee items of the statutory insurance. Cumulative cost-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness acceptability were estimated from bootstrapped samples. HT molars survived longer (estimated mean; 95% CI: 29.7; 26.6–30.5 months) than NRCC (25.3; 21.2–28.7 months) and CR molars (24.1; 22.0–26.2 months). HT was also less costly (66; 62–71 Euro) than NRCC (296; 274–318 Euro) and CR (83; 73–92 Euro). HT was more cost-effective than NRCC and CR in >96% of samples, and had acceptable cost-effectiveness regardless of a payer’s willingness-to-pay. This superior cost-effectiveness was confirmed for secondary health outcomes. Cost-advantages were even more pronounced when costs were calculated per year of tooth retention (mean annual costs were HT: 29, NRCC: 154, CR: 61 Euro). HT was more cost-effective than CR or NRCC for managing cavitated caries lesions in primary molars, yielding better dental health outcomes at lower costs. If choosing between these three strategies for managing cavitated caries lesions in primary molars, dentists should prefer HT over NRCC or CR. This would also save costs for the healthcare payer

Artificial Intelligence for Caries Detection: Value of Data and Information.

If increasing practitioners' diagnostic accuracy, medical artificial intelligence (AI) may lead to better treatment decisions at lower costs, while uncertainty remains around the resulting cost-effectiveness. In the present study, we assessed how enlarging the data set used for training an AI for caries detection on bitewings affects cost-effectiveness and also determined the value of information by reducing the uncertainty around other input parameters (namely, the costs of AI and the population's caries risk profile). We employed a convolutional neural network and trained it on 10%, 25%, 50%, or 100% of a labeled data set containing 29,011 teeth without and 19,760 teeth with caries lesions stemming from bitewing radiographs. We employed an established health economic modeling and analytical framework to quantify cost-effectiveness and value of information. We adopted a mixed public-private payer perspective in German health care; the health outcome was tooth retention years. A Markov model, allowing to follow posterior teeth over the lifetime of an initially 12-y-old individual, and Monte Carlo microsimulations were employed. With an increasing amount of data used to train the AI sensitivity and specificity increased nonlinearly, increasing the data set from 10% to 25% had the largest impact on accuracy and, consequently, cost-effectiveness. In the base-case scenario, AI was more effective (tooth retention for a mean [2.5%-97.5%] 62.8 [59.2-65.5] y) and less costly (378 [284-499] euros) than dentists without AI (60.4 [55.8-64.4] y; 419 [270-593] euros), with considerable uncertainty. The economic value of reducing the uncertainty around AI's accuracy or costs was limited, while information on the population's risk profile was more relevant. When developing dental AI, informed choices about the data set size may be recommended, and research toward individualized application of AI for caries detection seems warranted to optimize cost-effectiveness

Benchmarking Deep Learning Models for Tooth Structure Segmentation.

A wide range of deep learning (DL) architectures with varying depths are available, with developers usually choosing one or a few of them for their specific task in a nonsystematic way. Benchmarking (i.e., the systematic comparison of state-of-the art architectures on a specific task) may provide guidance in the model development process and may allow developers to make better decisions. However, comprehensive benchmarking has not been performed in dentistry yet. We aimed to benchmark a range of architecture designs for 1 specific, exemplary case: tooth structure segmentation on dental bitewing radiographs. We built 72 models for tooth structure (enamel, dentin, pulp, fillings, crowns) segmentation by combining 6 different DL network architectures (U-Net, U-Net++, Feature Pyramid Networks, LinkNet, Pyramid Scene Parsing Network, Mask Attention Network) with 12 encoders from 3 different encoder families (ResNet, VGG, DenseNet) of varying depth (e.g., VGG13, VGG16, VGG19). On each model design, 3 initialization strategies (ImageNet, CheXpert, random initialization) were applied, resulting overall into 216 trained models, which were trained up to 200 epochs with the Adam optimizer (learning rate = 0.0001) and a batch size of 32. Our data set consisted of 1,625 human-annotated dental bitewing radiographs. We used a 5-fold cross-validation scheme and quantified model performances primarily by the F1-score. Initialization with ImageNet or CheXpert weights significantly outperformed random initialization (P < 0.05). Deeper and more complex models did not necessarily perform better than less complex alternatives. VGG-based models were more robust across model configurations, while more complex models (e.g., from the ResNet family) achieved peak performances. In conclusion, initializing models with pretrained weights may be recommended when training models for dental radiographic analysis. Less complex model architectures may be competitive alternatives if computational resources and training time are restricting factors. Models developed and found superior on nondental data sets may not show this behavior for dental domain-specific tasks

Maintenance personnel performance simulation (MAPPS): a model for predicting maintenance performance reliability in nuclear power plants

The NRC has developed a structured, quantitative, predictive methodology in the form of a computerized simulation model for assessing maintainer task performance. Objective of the overall program is to develop, validate, and disseminate a practical, useful, and acceptable methodology for the quantitative assessment of NPP maintenance personnel reliability. The program was organized into four phases: (1) scoping study, (2) model development, (3) model evaluation, and (4) model dissemination. The program is currently nearing completion of Phase 2 - Model Development

Reporting guideline for the early stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI

A growing number of artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support systems are showing promising performance in preclinical, in silico, evaluation, but few have yet demonstrated real benefit to patient care. Early stage clinical evaluation is important to assess an AI system’s actual clinical performance at small scale, ensure its safety, evaluate the human factors surrounding its use, and pave the way to further large scale trials. However, the reporting of these early studies remains inadequate. The present statement provides a multistakeholder, consensus-based reporting guideline for the Developmental and Exploratory Clinical Investigations of DEcision support systems driven by Artificial Intelligence (DECIDE-AI). We conducted a two round, modified Delphi process to collect and analyse expert opinion on the reporting of early clinical evaluation of AI systems. Experts were recruited from 20 predefined stakeholder categories. The final composition and wording of the guideline was determined at a virtual consensus meeting. The checklist and the Explanation & Elaboration (E&E) sections were refined based on feedback from a qualitative evaluation process. 123 experts participated in the first round of Delphi, 138 in the second, 16 in the consensus meeting, and 16 in the qualitative evaluation. The DECIDE-AI reporting guideline comprises 17 AI specific reporting items (made of 28 subitems) and 10 generic reporting items, with an E&E paragraph provided for each. Through consultation and consensus with a range of stakeholders, we have developed a guideline comprising key items that should be reported in early stage clinical studies of AI-based decision support systems in healthcare. By providing an actionable checklist of minimal reporting items, the DECIDE-AI guideline will facilitate the appraisal of these studies and replicability of their findings