Search

Internet finance has permeated into myriad households, bringing about lifestyle convenience alongside potential risks. Presently, internet finance enterprises are progressively adopting machine learning and other artificial intelligence methods for risk alertness. What is the current status of the application of various machine learning models and algorithms across different institutions? Is there an optimal machine learning algorithm suited for the majority of internet finance platforms and application scenarios? Scholars have embarked on a series of studies addressing these questions; however, the focus predominantly lies in comparing different algorithms within specific platforms and contexts, lacking a comprehensive discourse and summary on the utilization of machine learning in this domain. Thus, based on the data from Web of Science and Scopus databases, this paper conducts a systematic literature review on all aspects of machine learning in internet finance risk in recent years, based on publications trends, geographical distribution, literature focus, machine learning models and algorithms, and evaluations. The research reveals that machine learning, as a nascent technology, whether through basic algorithms or intricate algorithmic combinations, has made significant strides compared to traditional credit scoring methods in predicting accuracy, time efficiency, and robustness in internet finance risk management. Nonetheless, there exist noticeable disparities among different algorithms, and factors such as model structure, sample data, and parameter settings also influence prediction accuracy, although generally, updated algorithms tend to achieve higher accuracy. Consequently, there is no one-size-fits-all approach applicable to all platforms; each platform should enhance its machine learning models and algorithms based on its unique characteristics, data, and the development of AI technology, starting from key evaluation indicators to mitigate internet finance risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been applied to diagnose temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). However, studies have used different patient selection criteria, disease subtypes, input data, and outcome measures. Resultantly, the performance of the AI models varies. Objective: This study aimed to systematically summarize the current literature on the application of AI technologies for diagnosis of different TMD subtypes, evaluate the quality of these studies, and assess the diagnostic accuracy of existing AI models. Materials and methods: The study protocol was carried out based on the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA). The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to find relevant articles from database inception to June 2022. Studies that used AI algorithms to diagnose at least one subtype of TMD and those that assessed the performance of AI algorithms were included. We excluded studies on orofacial pain that were not directly related to the TMD, such as studies on atypical facial pain and neuropathic pain, editorials, book chapters, and excerpts without detailed empirical data. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to provide certainty of evidence. Results: A total of 17 articles for automated diagnosis of masticatory muscle disorders, TMJ osteoarthrosis, internal derangement, and disc perforation were included; they were retrospective studies, case-control studies, cohort studies, and a pilot study. Seven studies were subjected to a meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy. According to the GRADE, the certainty of evidence was very low. The performance of the AI models had accuracy and specificity ranging from 84% to 99.9% and 73% to 100%, respectively. The pooled accuracy was 0.91 (95% CI 0.76–0.99), I2 = 97% (95% CI 0.96–0.98), p < 0.001. Conclusions: Various AI algorithms developed for diagnosing TMDs may provide additional clinical expertise to increase diagnostic accuracy. However, it should be noted that a high risk of bias was present in the included studies. Also, certainty of evidence was very low. Future research of higher quality is strongly recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]