Pearl vs ScreenPoint Transpara

A 2025 Diagnostics paper tested Second Opinion v1.1 and reported sensitivity of 91.0% for caries, 86.6% for periapical lesions, 80.2% for calculus and 91.1% for marginal bone loss, with caries specificity of 87%. That suits a dentist who wants a second reader on intraoral films. Pearl's own accuracy figures differ by page, 94% on the home page, validated by an unnamed third party, and over 95% in the FAQ.

Transpara goes to a group reading 2D and 3D mammograms, and Pearl goes to a dentist reading intraoral films. The MASAI screening trial is its evidence, and the vendor says Transpara was the tool. For the 2026 Lancet report the vendor cites a 12% lower interval cancer rate and sensitivity of 80.5% against 73.8% at 98.5% specificity across more than 105,000 women. The vendor's other headline figures, 29% more cancers detected and 44% less workload, come from separate analyses.