Does Lower Regression Error Mean Stronger Forensic Evidence? Machine Learning Regression Versus Demirjian and Willems Methods for Dental Age Estimation at 12- and 15-Year Legal Thresholds
Diagnostics, cilt.16, sa.17, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 16 Sayı: 17
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.3390/diagnostics16172690
- Dergi Adı: Diagnostics
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, EMBASE, Directory of Open Access Journals, Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), Biomedical Reference Collection: Corporate Edition (EBSCO)
- Anahtar Kelimeler: criminal responsibility, Demirjian method, dental age estimation, forensic dentistry, legal age thresholds, likelihood ratio, machine learning, Willems method
- Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Background/Objectives: Dental age estimation is important in clinical and forensic practice, particularly when skeletal indicators are unavailable or compromised. Machine-learning models often achieve lower regression errors than conventional dental methods; however, whether this translates into better classification performance at legally relevant age thresholds remains unclear. This study compared the Demirjian and Willems methods with several machine learning models for overall accuracy and threshold-specific performance at the jurisdiction-specific ages of 12 and 15 years. Methods: A total of 1384 panoramic radiographs from individuals aged 8.00–15.99 years were retrospectively evaluated. The developmental stages of the seven left mandibular permanent teeth and sex were used as model inputs. Linear Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, Support Vector Regression, Multilayer Perceptron, Gradient Boosting, and XGBoost were trained using cross-validation and evaluated on an internal holdout set. Performance was assessed using regression errors, age-group-specific bias, sensitivity, specificity, balanced accuracy, and likelihood ratios. Results: Machine-learning models generally produced lower errors than conventional methods. In the holdout set, the lowest mean absolute error was 0.512 years for Support Vector Regression and Gradient Boosting, followed by 0.519 years for XGBoost, compared with 0.649 and 0.654 years for the Willems and Demirjian methods. However, lower regression error did not consistently improve threshold-specific performance. At 12 years, machine learning models increased sensitivity but reduced specificity and positive likelihood ratios relative to Willems. At 15 years, Linear Regression and Random Forest produced no positive predictions, whereas the better-performing models showed results similar to Willems. Conclusions: Lower regression error does not necessarily indicate better forensic threshold-specific classification performance. Dental age-estimation models should therefore be validated using threshold-specific likelihood ratios, classification metrics, and age-group-specific bias in addition to overall prediction errors.