Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 401

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 access
Wang, Ching-Wei, Huang, Cheng-Ta, Lee, Jia-Hong, Li, Chung-Hsing, Chang, Sheng-Wei, Siao, Ming-Jhih, Lai, Tat-Ming, Ibragimov, Bulat, Vrtovec, Tomaž, Ronneberger, Olaf, Fischer, Philipp, Cootes, Tim F., Lindner, Claudia·2016·Medical Image Analysis

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.media.2016.02.004

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 23 references

Cited by

See all 401

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.