Back

Computational Phenotypes for Temporomandibular and Orofacial Pain Disorders

Clark, G. T.; Vistoso Monreal, A. P.; Veas Yanez, N.; Loeb, G.; Chen, J.

2026-09-10 dentistry and oral medicine
10.64898/2026.09.04.26351324 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and orofacial pain (OFP) conditions affect approximately one-third of the global population, yet diagnosis often relies on subjective clinical assessment rather than standardized, evidence-based criteria. This diagnostic uncertainty contributes to misdiagnosis, misdirected or delayed treatment and significant healthcare costs. Case description: We prospectively collected structured clinical data from 1,584 patients using a custom, structured, note-documentation system designed for machine learning compatibility (Smart Medical Note [SmartNote]). From the 77 possible TMD-OFP diagnoses, we identified 17 conditions with sufficient case volumes ([≥]24 exemplars) for analysis. The clinical features which were present at or above >50% in these cases underwent Monte Carlo statistical analysis to determine which ones are most useful for creating an objective diagnostic profile. The 17 evidence-based diagnostic profiles demonstrated strong discriminative performance (median AUC values 0.71-0.99). Practical Implications: These diagnostic profiles represent the first large-scale, statistically derived criteria for TMD and orofacial pain conditions. By providing objective, quantifiable diagnostic standards, this statistical analysis of structured electronic records can support algorithmic diagnostic-assist software, reduce the time to appropriate treatment, and enhance clinical decision-making and documentation of diagnoses for dental practitioners, regardless of their level of specialized training in orofacial pain. Diagnostic alignment analysis confirms complete concordance with DC-TMD criteria for seven major diagnostic categories, validating the clinical applicability of our data-driven approach.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.