Evaluating SWAG and Its Validity When Compared to 3D Imagery of Secondarily Grafted Cleft Sites.

David S Briss Ross E LongJohn B PetermanJean Charles DoucetJohn DaskalogiannakisRonald R HathawayAna M MercadoKathy RussellLexi Stauffer

Published in: The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (2023)

2D SWAG systematically and non-significantly underestimated bone-fill. There was a significant correlation between 2D/3D methods. Bland-Altman analysis illustrated the similarity of the two methods. For comparisons of group (cleft treatment Centers') bone grafting outcomes, the 2D method may suffice as a proxy for the 3D method. However, with individual variation up to 40% in 2D estimates of actual 3D volume, 2D SWAG method cannot be used in place of 3D images.

Keyphrases

bone mineral density
deep learning
soft tissue
type diabetes
bone loss
adipose tissue
machine learning
optical coherence tomography
glycemic control