Viktor Szabó
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Viktor Szabó has a total of 10 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Bence Tamás Szabó
Department of Oral Diagnostics, Semmelweis University, Szentkirályi utca 47, 1088 Budapest, Hungary
2 shared publications - Dániel Sándor Veres
Department of Biophysics and Radiation Biology, Semmelweis University, 1094 Budapest, Hungary
2 shared publications - Kaan Orhan
Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara 06560, Turkey
2 shared publications - Alex Sanders
Diagnocat Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA
1 shared publication - Alex Sanders
Diagnocat Inc., San Francisco, CA 94102, USA
1 shared publication - Csaba Dobó-Nagy
Department of Oral Diagnostics, Faculty of Dentistry, Semmelweis University, 1085 Budapest, Hungary
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Top Cited PapersOpen Access
- 19 February 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Diagnostics
- Vol. 15 (4) , 510
Deep Learning-Based Periapical Lesion Detection on Panoramic Radiographs
Background/Objectives: Our study aimed to determine the accuracy of the artificial intelligence-based Diagnocat system (DC) in detecting periapical lesions (PL) on panoramic radiographs (PRs). Methods: 616 teeth were selected from 357 panoramic radiographs, including 308 teeth with clearly visible periapical radiolucency and 308 without any periapical lesion. Three groups were generated: teeth with radiographic signs of caries (Group 1), teeth with coronal restoration (Group 2), and teeth with root canal filling (Group 3). The PRs were uploaded to the Diagnocat system for evaluation. The performance of the convolutional neural network in detecting PLs was assessed by its sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values, as well as the diagnostic accuracy value. We investigated the possible effect of the palatoglossal air space (PGAS) on the evaluation of the AI tool. Results: DC identified periapical lesions in 240 (77.9%) cases out of the 308 teeth with PL and detected no PL in 68 (22.1%) teeth with PL. The AI-based system detected no PL in any of the groups without PL. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of DC were 0.78, 1.00, and 0.89, respectively. Considering these parameters for each group, Group 2 showed the highest values at 0.84, 1.00, and 0.95, respectively. Fisher’s Exact test showed that PGAS does not significantly affect (p = 1) the detection of PL in the upper teeth. The AI-based system showed lower probability values for detecting PL in the case of central incisors, wisdom teeth, and canines. The sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of DC for detecting PL on canines showed lower values at 0.27 and 0.64, respectively. Conclusions: The CNN-based Diagnocat system can support the diagnosis of PL on PRs and serves as a decision-support tool during radiographic assessments.
- 19 February 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Diagnostics
- Vol. 15 (4) , 510
Top Cited PapersOpen AccessDeep Learning-Based Periapical Lesion Detection on Panoramic Radiographs
Background/Objectives: Our study aimed to determine the accuracy of the artificial intelligence-based Diagnocat system (DC) in detecting periapical lesions (PL) on panoramic radiographs (PRs). Methods: 616 teeth were selected from 357 panoramic radiographs, including 308 teeth with clearly visible periapical radiolucency and 308 without any periapical lesion. Three groups were generated: teeth with radiographic signs of caries (Group 1), teeth with coronal restoration (Group 2), and teeth with root canal filling (Group 3). The PRs were uploaded to the Diagnocat system for evaluation. The performance of the convolutional neural network in detecting PLs was assessed by its sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values, as well as the diagnostic accuracy value. We investigated the possible effect of the palatoglossal air space (PGAS) on the evaluation of the AI tool. Results: DC identified periapical lesions in 240 (77.9%) cases out of the 308 teeth with PL and detected no PL in 68 (22.1%) teeth with PL. The AI-based system detected no PL in any of the groups without PL. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of DC were 0.78, 1.00, and 0.89, respectively. Considering these parameters for each group, Group 2 showed the highest values at 0.84, 1.00, and 0.95, respectively. Fisher’s Exact test showed that PGAS does not significantly affect (p = 1) the detection of PL in the upper teeth. The AI-based system showed lower probability values for detecting PL in the case of central incisors, wisdom teeth, and canines. The sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of DC for detecting PL on canines showed lower values at 0.27 and 0.64, respectively. Conclusions: The CNN-based Diagnocat system can support the diagnosis of PL on PRs and serves as a decision-support tool during radiographic assessments.
- Top Cited PapersOpen Access
- 29 May 2024
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Dentistry
- Vol. 147, 105105
Validation of artificial intelligence application for dental caries diagnosis on intraoral bitewing and periapical radiographs
- 29 May 2024
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Dentistry
- Vol. 147, 105105
Top Cited PapersOpen AccessValidation of artificial intelligence application for dental caries diagnosis on intraoral bitewing and periapical radiographs