METHODS: Participants were invited from 3 day-care community centers. Intraoral photographs were captured and assessed by both GumAI (test) and a panel consisting of 2 calibrated periodontists and a dentist (benchmark). Mean sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and F1 score were calculated to determine GumAI's diagnostic performance in comparison to the benchmark. User acceptance with this tool was assessed using 2 Rasch Theory-based 5-point Likert-type questions.

RESULTS: 44 participants were recruited out of 80 invited older adults. GumAI demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.93 and specificity of 0.50 compared to the panel's assessments, with a PPV of 0.90 and NPV of 0.56. The accuracy and F1 scores were 0.85 and 0.91, respectively. All participants expressed high acceptance of the process.

CONCLUSION: GumAI demonstrates high sensitivity, PPV, accuracy, and F1 score compared to the panel's assessments but falls relatively short in specificity and NPV. Despite this, the tool was highly accepted by older adults, indicating its potential to enhance gingivitis detection and oral hygiene management in community settings. Further refinements are necessary to improve specificity and validate usability measures.