MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Efficacy of Automatic 3D Segmentation of the Upper Airway in CBCT or CT Scans via Artificial Intelligence Versus Manual Segmentation by Human Experts: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Efficacy of Automatic 3D Segmentation of the Upper Airway in CBCT or CT Scans via Artificial Intelligence Versus Manual Segmentation by Human Experts: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Efficacy of Automatic 3D Segmentation of the Upper Airway in CBCT or CT Scans via Artificial Intelligence Versus Manual Segmentation by Human Experts: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Efficacy of Automatic 3D Segmentation of the Upper Airway in CBCT or CT Scans via Artificial Intelligence Versus Manual Segmentation by Human Experts: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Efficacy of Automatic 3D Segmentation of the Upper Airway in CBCT or CT Scans via Artificial Intelligence Versus Manual Segmentation by Human Experts: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Efficacy of Automatic 3D Segmentation of the Upper Airway in CBCT or CT Scans via Artificial Intelligence Versus Manual Segmentation by Human Experts: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Efficacy of Automatic 3D Segmentation of the Upper Airway in CBCT or CT Scans via Artificial Intelligence Versus Manual Segmentation by Human Experts: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Journal Article

Efficacy of Automatic 3D Segmentation of the Upper Airway in CBCT or CT Scans via Artificial Intelligence Versus Manual Segmentation by Human Experts: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2026
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Objectives 3D segmentation of the upper airway is crucial for dental and medical practices. However, it is a difficult and daunting task. Like almost all other areas, AI can theoretically help in airway segmentation. Nevertheless, AI's efficacy remains unknown. This meta‐analysis investigated this matter for the first time. Material and Methods ‎Various search engines/databases/articles were searched for articles published until April 25, 2025. All English‐language articles on the use of AI for upper airway evaluations based on CBCT or CT scans were included in the study. The desired population was considered studies assessing the upper airway. Intervention was the use of any tool of AI such as deep learning and machine learning for image analysis. The comparator was the manual analysis of CBCT or CT scans by human. The outcome was the analysis of upper airway on CBCT or CT images. The recorded and analyzed effect sizes were: accuracies, precisions, dice similarity scores, total volume differences, intersection over union (IoU), recall, or any other parameters relevant to segmentation. A meta‐analysis was conducted for each of the mentioned parameters if adequate data were available. The outcome was the analysis of upper airway on CBCT or CT images (PROSPERO: CRD42024508004). Results Eleven studies were included, with 6 studies included in meta‐analyses. Most studies had a low risk of bias in most aspects. The qualitative part of review showed promising results for AI segmentation. Four of the effects sizes were meta‐analyzed: Precision,‎ dice similarity score, intersection over union, ‎ and recall were all above 90%.‎ Total volume difference was small but significantly above zero. Sensitivity analyses showed robustness of all meta‐analysis results. Publication bias was insignificant. Conclusions The results showed promising AI efficacies in 3D segmentation of the upper airway in CBCTs. However, much more studies are needed before decisive conclusions.