maki koyama dental risk predictor

11
Dental Risk Preditor Keeping Appointments, Keeping Happy Smiles Maki S. Koyama Insight Data Science

Upload: maki-koyama

Post on 23-Feb-2017

118 views

Category:

Health & Medicine


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Maki Koyama Dental Risk Predictor

Dental Risk PreditorKeeping Appointments, Keeping Happy Smiles

Maki S. KoyamaInsight Data Science

Page 2: Maki Koyama Dental Risk Predictor

PROBLEM

SOLUTION

• Dentists suffer cancellations/no show-up, reducing practice efficiency and profits

• No perceived need in patients

• Educate patients and fill a gap between the perceived need and the actual-need

• Tools/models to estimate dental risks – the probability of tooth loss

Page 3: Maki Koyama Dental Risk Predictor

Data Features Outcomes Binary Classification

Analysis

US National Health & Nutrition Survey

Age: 20-80yr

Cross-sectional

7 features:1) Age2) Sex3) Insurance 4) Annual Income5) Smoking6) Drinking7) Avoided food

Permanent tooth present or absent

1) Logistic Reg2) Naïve Bayes3) Random Forest

Page 4: Maki Koyama Dental Risk Predictor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 160

20

40

60

80

100

Tooth Location

Per

cent

age

%

Tooth Loss Percentage (%)

Wisdom Teeth

Upper

Lower

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 320

20

40

60

80

100

Tooth Location

Per

cent

age

%

Wisdom Teeth

Page 5: Maki Koyama Dental Risk Predictor

Cross-Validation: LR AUC SummaryWisdom Teeth

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 160.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Tooth Location

Pro

babi

lity

The Upper Jaw

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 320.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Tooth Location

Pro

babi

lity

The Lower Jaw

LR AUC: Range = 0.72 ~ 0.8510-fold cross validation: Accuracy = 70~85%

Across 32 tooth location

Tooth #2

LR A

UC

LR A

UC

LR is the best model across 32 locations

Page 6: Maki Koyama Dental Risk Predictor

Important Features

At risk for losing a tooth (28 teeth)Wisdom Teeth

More Lost More Present

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Food Avoided

Smoke Now

High Income

Low Income

Aging

Coefficients-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Smoke Now

High Income

Insurance

Sex (W)

Aging

Coefficients

More Lost More Present

< 10k

100k >

Page 7: Maki Koyama Dental Risk Predictor

What is your age (yrs)?

Are you a male or female?

Select your annual House Income ($)Do you currently smoke? If so, how many per day?Did you avoid any particular food due to teethproblems in the last 1 year?

How often did you have a dental checkupin the last 1 year?

How often do you brush and floss your teeth per day?

How often do you have sugary snacks per day?

”Please complete this survey”

35

0

1

M F

Yes NoYes No

0

12

Page 8: Maki Koyama Dental Risk Predictor

Dentists can spot patient’s dental risksAmy Smith: 35 years old, female

The estimated probability of “losing tooth”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213141516171819202122232425262728293031320.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Tooth Location

Pro

babi

ity o

f Too

th L

oss

Page 9: Maki Koyama Dental Risk Predictor

What is your age (yrs)?

Are you a male or female?

Select your annual House Income ($)Do you currently smoke? If so, how many per day?Did you avoid any particular food due to teethproblems in the last 1 year?

How often did you have a dental checkupin the last 1 year?

How often do you brush and floss your teeth per day?

How often do you have sugary snacks per day?

”Please complete this survey”

35

0

1

M F

Yes NoYes No

0

12

Page 10: Maki Koyama Dental Risk Predictor

About Me

Maki S. Koyama

PhD in Physiology at University of Oxford, UK

Neuroimaging research, including infant scanning, for neurodevelopmental disorders

Page 11: Maki Koyama Dental Risk Predictor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213141516171819202122232425262728293031320.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Tooth LocationP

roba

biity

of T

ooth

Los

s

Patient 1 Patient 2Age/Sex: 35 yrs / M 35 yrs / MInsurance: No YesIncome: Low HighSmoke now : Yes No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213141516171819202122232425262728293031320.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Tooth Location

Pro

babi

ity o

f Too

th L

ossTwo Extreme Cases

Patient 1 Patient 2