The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A benchmark for comparison of dental radiography analysis algorithms
Open accessAbstract
Dental radiography plays an important role in clinical diagnosis, treatment and surgery. In recent years, efforts have been made on developing computerized dental X-ray image analysis systems for clinical usages. A novel framework for objective evaluation of automatic dental radiography analysis algorithms has been established under the auspices of the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging 2015 Bitewing Radiography Caries Detection Challenge and Cephalometric X-ray Image Analysis Challenge. In this article, we present the datasets, methods and results of the challenge and lay down the principles for future uses of this benchmark. The main contributions of the challenge include the creation of the dental anatomy data repository of bitewing radiographs, the creation of the anatomical abnormality classification data repository of cephalometric radiographs, and the definition of objective quantitative evaluation for comparison and ranking of the algorithms. With this benchmark, seven automatic methods for analysing cephalometric X-ray image and two automatic methods for detecting bitewing radiography caries have been compared, and detailed quantitative evaluation results are presented in this paper. Based on the quantitative evaluation results, we believe automatic dental radiography analysis is still a challenging and unsolved problem. The datasets and the evaluation software will be made available to the research community, further encouraging future developments in this field. (http://www-o.ntust.edu.tw/~cweiwang/ISBI2015/).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation
Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., & Brox, T. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28 · Cited by 99,404
Self-citationRapid object detection using a boosted cascade of simple features
Viola, P., & Jones, M. (2005) · Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. CVPR 2001 · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2001.990517 · Cited by 18,300
Caffe: Convolutional Architecture for Fast Feature Embedding
Jia, Y., Shelhamer, E., Donahue, J., Karayev, S., Long, J., Girshick, R., Guadarrama, S., & Darrell, T. (2014) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Multimedia · doi:10.1145/2647868.2654889 · Cited by 11,077
Active Shape Models-Their Training and Application
Cootes, T. F., Taylor, C. J., Cooper, D. H., & Graham, J. (1995) · Computer Vision and Image Understanding · doi:10.1006/cviu.1995.1004 · Cited by 7,190
Self-citation(2015) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24553-9 · Cited by 2,285
Steiner, C. C. (1953) · American Journal of Orthodontics · doi:10.1016/0002-9416(53)90082-7 · Cited by 1,365
A method of cephalometric evaluation
McNamara, J. A. (1984) · American Journal of Orthodontics · doi:10.1016/s0002-9416(84)90352-x · Cited by 1,104
Variations in facial relationships: Their significance in treatment and prognosis
Downs, W. B. (1948) · American Journal of Orthodontics · doi:10.1016/0002-9416(48)90015-3 · Cited by 1,014
Discriminative Unsupervised Feature Learning with Convolutional Neural NetworksPreprint
Dosovitskiy, A., Springenberg, J. T., Riedmiller, M., & Brox, T. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 791
Cited by
Deep learning in medical image analysis
Shen, D., Wu, G., & Suk, H.-I. (2017) · Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071516-044442 · Cited by 4,968
Medical Image Denoising Using Convolutional Denoising Autoencoders
Gondara, L. (2016) · 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW) · doi:10.1109/icdmw.2016.0041 · Cited by 737
Segmentation of organs‐at‐risks in head and neck CT images using convolutional neural networks
Ibragimov, B., & Xing, L. (2017) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/mp.12045 · Cited by 502
Self-citationLi, J., Chen, J., Tang, Y., Wang, C., Landman, B. A., & Zhou, S. K. (2023) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2023.102762 · Cited by 389
Self-citationIntegrating spatial configuration into heatmap regression based CNNs for landmark localization
Payer, C., Štern, D., Bischof, H., & Urschler, M. (2019) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2019.03.007 · Cited by 365
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, C.-W., Huang, C.-T., Lee, J.-H., Li, C.-H., Chang, S.-W., Siao, M.-J., Lai, T.-M., Ibragimov, B., Vrtovec, T., Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Cootes, T. F., & Lindner, C.
- Venue
- Medical Image Analysis
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-07
- Volume
- 31
- Pages
- 63-76
- ISSN
- 1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2275865840
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 25.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A benchmark for comparison of dental radiography analysis algorithms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.media.2016.02.004
- The paper
- Wang, C.-W., Huang, C.-T., Lee, J.-H., Li, C.-H., Chang, S.-W., Siao, M.-J., Lai, T.-M., Ibragimov, B., Vrtovec, T., Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Cootes, T. F., & Lindner, C. (2016). A benchmark for comparison of dental radiography analysis algorithms. Medical Image Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2016.02.004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.