Feasibility of Utilizing Electronic Dental Record Data and Periodontitis Case Definition to Automate Diagnosis.

Periodontitis is an irreversible disease leading to tooth loss, and 42% U.S. population suffers from periodontitis. Hence, diagnosing, monitoring, and determining its prevalence is critical to develop preventive strategies. However, a nationwide epidemiological study estimating the prevalence reported a concern about the discontinuation of such studies due to cost and ethical reasons. Therefore, this study determined the feasibility of utilizing electronic dental record (EDR) data and periodontitis case definition to automate periodontitis diagnosis. We utilized EDR data from the Indiana University School of Dentistry of 28,908 unique patients. We developed and tested a computer algorithm to diagnose periodontitis using the case definition. We found 44%, 22%, and 1% of patients with moderate, severe, and mild periodontitis, respectively. The algorithm worked with 100% sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy because of the excellent quality of the EDR data. We concluded the feasibility of providing automated periodontitis diagnosis from EDR data to conduct epidemiological studies across the US.

Comparing gingivitis diagnoses by bleeding on probing (BOP) exclusively versus BOP combined with visual signs using large electronic dental records.

The major significance of the 2018 gingivitis classification criteria is utilizing a simple, objective, and reliable clinical sign, bleeding on probing score (BOP%), to diagnose gingivitis. However, studies report variations in gingivitis diagnoses with the potential to under- or over-estimating disease occurrence. This study determined the agreement between gingivitis diagnoses generated using the 2018 criteria (BOP%) versus diagnoses using BOP% and other gingival visual assessments. We conducted a retrospective study of 28,908 patients' electronic dental records (EDR) from January-2009 to December-2014, at the Indiana University School of Dentistry. Computational and natural language processing (NLP) approaches were developed to diagnose gingivitis cases from BOP% and retrieve diagnoses from clinical notes. Subsequently, we determined the agreement between BOP%-generated diagnoses and clinician-recorded diagnoses. A thirty-four percent agreement was present between BOP%-generated diagnoses and clinician-recorded diagnoses for disease status (no gingivitis/gingivitis) and a 9% agreement for the disease extent (localized/generalized gingivitis). The computational program and NLP performed excellently with 99.5% and 98% f-1 measures, respectively. Sixty-six percent of patients diagnosed with gingivitis were reclassified as having healthy gingiva based on the 2018 diagnostic classification. The results indicate potential challenges with clinicians adopting the new diagnostic criterion as they transition to using the BOP% alone and not considering the visual signs of inflammation. Periodic training and calibration could facilitate clinicians' and researchers' adoption of the 2018 diagnostic system. The informatics approaches developed could be utilized to automate diagnostic findings from EDR charting and clinical notes.

Developing Automated Computer Algorithms to Track Periodontal Disease Change from Longitudinal Electronic Dental Records.

OBJECTIVE: To develop two automated computer algorithms to extract information from clinical notes, and to generate three cohorts of patients (disease improvement, disease progression, and no disease change) to track periodontal disease (PD) change over time using longitudinal electronic dental records (EDR). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 28,908 patients who received a comprehensive oral evaluation between 1 January 2009, and 31 December 2014, at Indiana University School of Dentistry (IUSD) clinics. We utilized various Python libraries, such as Pandas, TensorFlow, and PyTorch, and a natural language tool kit to develop and test computer algorithms. We tested the performance through a manual review process by generating a confusion matrix. We calculated precision, recall, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy to evaluate the performances of the algorithms. Finally, we evaluated the density of longitudinal EDR data for the following follow-up times: (1) None; (2) Up to 5 years; (3) > 5 and ≤ 10 years; and (4) >10 and ≤ 15 years. RESULTS: Thirty-four percent (n = 9954) of the study cohort had up to five years of follow-up visits, with an average of 2.78 visits with periodontal charting information. For clinician-documented diagnoses from clinical notes, 42% of patients (n = 5562) had at least two PD diagnoses to determine their disease change. In this cohort, with clinician-documented diagnoses, 72% percent of patients (n = 3919) did not have a disease status change between their first and last visits, 669 (13%) patients' disease status progressed, and 589 (11%) patients' disease improved. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing longitudinal EDR data to track disease changes over 15 years during the observation study period. We provided detailed steps and computer algorithms to clean and preprocess the EDR data and generated three cohorts of patients. This information can now be utilized for studying clinical courses using artificial intelligence and machine learning methods.