Evaluating dental AI research papers: Key considerations for editors and reviewers
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11110%2F25%3A10499976" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11110/25:10499976 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=NlAEgan-h8" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=NlAEgan-h8</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105867" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105867</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Evaluating dental AI research papers: Key considerations for editors and reviewers
Original language description
Objective: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in dental research for diagnosis, treatment planning, and disease prediction. However, many dental AI studies lack methodological rigor, transparency, or reproducibility, and no dedicated peer-review guidance exists for this field. Methods: Editors and reviewers from the ITU/WHO/WIPO AI for Health-Dentistry group participated in a structured survey and group discussions to identify key elements for reviewing AI dental research. A draft of the recommendations was circulated for feedback and consensus. Results: The consensus from editors and reviewers identified four key indicators of high-quality AI dental research: (1) relevance to a real clinical or methodological problem, (2) robust and transparent methodology, (3) reproducibility through data/code availability or functional demos, and (4) adherence to ethical and responsible reporting practices. Common reasons for rejection included lack of novelty, poor methodology, limited external testing, and overstated claims. Four essential checks were proposed to support peer review: the study should address a meaningful clinical question, follow appropriate reporting guidelines (e.g., DENTAL-AI, STARD-AI), clearly describe reproducible methods, and use precise, justified, and clinically relevant wording. Conclusion: Editors and reviewers play a critical role in improving the quality of AI research in dentistry. This guidance aims to support more robust peer review and contribute to the development of reliable, clinically relevant, and ethically sound AI applications in dentistry.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
30208 - Dentistry, oral surgery and medicine
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju
Others
Publication year
2025
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
Journal of Dentistry
ISSN
0300-5712
e-ISSN
1879-176X
Volume of the periodical
160
Issue of the periodical within the volume
September
Country of publishing house
GB - UNITED KINGDOM
Number of pages
6
Pages from-to
105867
UT code for WoS article
001513409700008
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-105008120382