↓ Skip to main content

Predicting oral malodour based on the microbiota in saliva samples using a deep learning approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
Predicting oral malodour based on the microbiota in saliva samples using a deep learning approach
Published in
BMC Oral Health, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12903-018-0591-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoshio Nakano, Nao Suzuki, Fumiyuki Kuwata

Abstract

Oral malodour is mainly caused by volatile sulphur compounds produced by bacteria and bacterial interactions. It is difficult to predict the presence or absence of oral malodour based on the abundances of specific species and their combinations. This paper presents an effective way of deep learning approach to predicting the oral malodour from salivary microbiota. The 16S rRNA genes from saliva samples of 90 subjects (45 had no or weak oral malodour, and 45 had marked oral malodour) were amplified, and gene sequence analysis was carried out. Deep learning classified oral malodour and healthy breath based on the resultant abundances of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) RESULTS: A discrimination classifier model was constructed by profiling OTUs and calculating their relative abundance in saliva samples from 90 subjects. Our deep learning model achieved a predictive accuracy of 97%, compared to the 79% obtained with a support vector machine. This approach is expected to be useful in screening the saliva for prediction of oral malodour before visits to specialist clinics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Unspecified 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 22 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 12%
Unspecified 7 9%
Computer Science 6 8%
Engineering 5 7%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 25 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,927,434
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#73
of 1,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,751
of 331,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,567 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.