## 3 Results
### Accuracy Analysis  
To compare each examiner's overall accuracy with and without AI's aid, an average of the MAEs was calculated for each group (Table 3). The average MAE of CEFBOT was 1.83 (in mm/\({}^{\circ}\)), which was within the clinically acceptable range (MAEs < 2 mm/\({}^{\circ}\)). The examiners' accuracy without AI generally followed their level of experience and exposure to the cephalometric analyses. The orthodontist and resident both had MAEs within the clinically acceptable range (1.57 and 1.99 mm/\({}^{\circ}\), respectively) while the accuracy of the dentist and dental student were out of the range, with MAEs of 2.55 and 2.68 mm/\({}^{\circ}\), respectively. With the aid of AI, the accuracy of the orthodontist, resident, dentist, and dental student improved by 12.74%, 19.10%, 35.69%, and 33.96%, respectively (Figure 3). The AI/human augmentation method revealed clinically acceptable accuracies for all of the examiner groups. Although the examiners' accuracy improved by 27.27% with the aid of AI, the least experienced clinicians benefitted the most from the AI/human augmentation method of cephalometric landmark identification. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Measurements** & **F-Value** & **\(p\)-Value** & **Pairwise Comparison** \\ \hline Ba-S-N (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 3.04 & \textless{}0.01 & 1 \textgreater{}5, 2 \textgreater{}5, 3 \textless{}7, 4 \textgreater{}5, 7 \textgreater{}5, 8 \textgreater{}5, 5 \textless{}6, 5 \textless{}9 \\ U1-SN (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 1.25 & 0.27 & \\ U1-NA (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 1.59 & 0.13 & \\ U1-NA (mm) & 0.9 & 0.52 & \\ L1-IMP (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 2.12 & 0.03 & 1 \textless{}3, 1 \textless{}7, 3 \textgreater{}4, 3 \textgreater{}5, 4 \textless{}7, 7 \textgreater{}5, 5 \textless{}6, 5 \textless{}9 \\ L1-NB (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.65 & 0.74 & \\ L1-NB (mm) & 1.14 & 0.34 & \\ Interincisal Angle (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.42 & 0.9101 & \\ Upper Lip to E-Plane (mm) & 1.05 & 0.4 & \\ Lower Lip to E-Plane (mm) & 1.68 & 0.1 & \\ N\({}^{\prime}\)-Sn\({}^{\prime}\) (mm) & 7.27 & \textless{}0.01 & 1 \textless{}2, 1 \textless{}3, 1 \textless{}4, 1 \textless{}7, 1 \textless{}8, 1 \textgreater{}5, 1 \textless{}6, \\ \(1<9,2>5,3>5,4>5,7>5,8>5,5<6,5<9\) \\ Sn\({}^{\prime}\)-Me\({}^{\prime}\) (mm) & 0.89 & 0.53 & \\ N-ANS (mm) & 6.21 & \textless{}0.01 & 1 \textgreater{}5, 2 \textgreater{}5, 3 \textgreater{}5, 4 \textgreater{}5, 7 \textgreater{}5, 8 \textgreater{}5, 5 \textless{}6, 5 \textless{}9 \\ ANS-Me (mm) & 3.87 & 0.0003 & 1 \textgreater{}3, 1 \textgreater{}7, 1 \textgreater{}5, 1 \textgreater{}9, 2 \textgreater{}3, 2 \textgreater{}7, 2 \textgreater{}5, \\  & & & 2 \textgreater{}9, 3 \textless{}4, 3 \textless{}8, 4 \textgreater{}7, 4 \textgreater{}5, 4 \textgreater{}9, 7 \textless{}8, 7 \textless{}6 \\ Ar-Go (mm) & 1.18 & 0.31 & \\ NA-Apo (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 1.3 & 0.24 & \\ FH-Npo (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 1.98 & 0.05 & 2 \textless{}7, 3 \textless{}7, 4 \textless{}7, 7 \textgreater{}6, 7 \textgreater{}9, 5 \textless{}6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* 1: Orthodontist, 2: orthodontist/AI, 3: resident, 4: resident/AI, 5: dentist, 6: dentist/AI, 7: student, 8: student/AI, 9: AI.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Measurements** & **Orthodontist** & **Orthodontist** & **Resident** & **Resident** & **Dentist** & **Detalist** & **Student** & **AI** & **Mean** & **without** & **Mean** \\  & & **AI** & **AI** & **AI** & **AI** & **AI** & **AI** & **AI** & **with AI** \\ \hline SNA (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 1.67 & 1.20 & 1.69 & 1.66 & 3.24 & 1.61 & 3.57 & 1.77 & 1.86 & 2.54 & 1.56 \\ SN-Palatlane (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 1.50  
Without the aid of AI, 13 out of 26 cephalometric measurements (maximillary and mandibular lengths, posterior face height, SNA, FMA, cranial base, U1-SN, L1-MP, L1-NB, interincisal, convexity, and facial angles) yielded MAEs out of the clinically acceptable range (Table 3).