Development of Risk Prediction Models for Severe Periodontitis in a Thai Population: Statistical and Machine Learning Approaches

Background: Severe periodontitis affects 26% of Thai adults and 11.2% of adults globally and is characterized by the loss of alveolar bone height. Full-mouth examination by periodontal probing is the gold standard for diagnosis but is time- and resource-intensive. A screening model to identify those at high risk of severe periodontitis would offer a targeted approach and aid in reducing the workload for dentists. While statistical modelling by a logistic regression is commonly applied, optimal performance depends on feature selections and engineering. Machine learning has been recently gaining favor given its potential discriminatory power and ability to deal with multiway interactions without the requirements of linear assumptions.

Objective: We aim to compare the performance of screening models developed using statistical and machine learning approaches for the risk prediction of severe periodontitis.

Methods: This study used data from the prospective Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand cohort. Dental examinations were performed for the 2008 and 2013 surveys. Oral examinations (ie, number of teeth and oral hygiene index and plaque scores), periodontal pocket depth, and gingival recession were performed by dentists. The outcome of interest was severe periodontitis diagnosed by the Centre for Disease Control-American Academy of Periodontology, defined as 2 or more interproximal sites with a clinical attachment level ≥6 mm (on different teeth) and 1 or more interproximal sites with a periodontal pocket depth ≥5 mm. Risk prediction models were developed using mixed-effects logistic regression (MELR), recurrent neural network, mixed-effects support vector machine, and mixed-effects decision tree models. A total of 21 features were considered as predictive features, including 4 demographic characteristics, 2 physical examinations, 4 underlying diseases, 1 medication, 2 risk behaviors, 2 oral features, and 6 laboratory features.

Results: A total of 3883 observations from 2086 participants were split into development (n=3112, 80.1%) and validation (n=771, 19.9%) sets with prevalences of periodontitis of 34.4% (n=1070) and 34.1% (n=263), respectively. The final MELR model contained 6 features (gender, education, smoking, diabetes mellitus, number of teeth, and plaque score) with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.983 (95% CI 0.977-0.989) and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 11.9 (95% CI 8.8-16.3). Machine learning yielded lower performance than the MELR model, with AUC (95% CI) and LR+ (95% CI) values of 0.712 (0.669-0.754) and 2.1 (1.8-2.6), respectively, for the recurrent neural network model; 0.698 (0.681-0.734) and 2.1 (1.7-2.6), respectively, for the mixed-effects support vector machine model; and 0.662 (0.621-0.702) and 2.4 (1.9-3.0), respectively, for the mixed-effects decision tree model.

Conclusions: The MELR model might be more useful than machine learning for large-scale screening to identify those at high risk of severe periodontitis for periodontal evaluation. External validation using data from other centers is required to evaluate the generalizability of the model.