{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03156146179401993, 'fraction_numerical': 0.024916943521594685, 'mean_word_length': 5.409574468085107, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Concurrent validity and reliability of cephalometric analysis using smartphone apps and computer software.

OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of two smartphone cephalometric analysis apps compared with Viewbox software.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Pretreatment digital lateral cephalograms of 50 consecutive orthodontic patients (20 males, 30 females; mean age, 19.1 years; SD, 11.7) were traced twice using two apps (ie, CephNinja and OneCeph), with Viewbox used as the gold standard computer software program. Seven angular and two linear measurements, originally derived from Steiner cephalometric analysis, were performed.


RESULTS
Regarding validity, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged from .903-.983 and .786-.978 for OneCeph vs Viewbox and CephNinja vs Viewbox, respectively. The ICC values for intratool reliability ranged from .647-.993. None of the CephNinja measurements was below the recommended cutoff values of ICCs for reliability.


CONCLUSIONS
OneCeph has a high validity compared with Viewbox, while CephNinja is the best alternative to Viewbox regarding reliability. Smartphone apps may have a great potential in supplementing traditional cephalometric analysis.