Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38866751›Full record

ArticleBDJ open2024

Leveraging Large Language Models in the delivery of post-operative dental care: a comparison between an embedded GPT model and ChatGPT.

Itrat Batool, Nighat Naved, Syed Murtaza Raza Kazmi, Fahad Umer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BDJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Is ChatGPT a Reliable Auxiliary Tool in Basic Life Support Training and Education? A Cross-sectional Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Itrat BatoolSection of Dentistry, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Nighat NavedSection of Dentistry, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Syed Murtaza Raza KazmiSection of Dentistry, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6934-6945
Fahad UmerSection of Dentistry, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan. fahad.umer@aku.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3817-5941

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study underscores the transformative role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare, particularly the promising applications of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the delivery of post-operative dental care. The aim is to evaluate the performance of an embedded GPT model and its comparison with ChatGPT-3.5 turbo. The assessment focuses on aspects like response accuracy, clarity, relevance, and up-to-date knowledge in addressing patient concerns and facilitating informed decision-making. MATERIAL AND

methodsAn embedded GPT model, employing GPT-3.5-16k, was crafted via GPT-trainer to answer postoperative questions in four dental specialties including Operative Dentistry & Endodontics, Periodontics, Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, and Prosthodontics. The generated responses were validated by thirty-six dental experts, nine from each specialty, employing a Likert scale, providing comprehensive insights into the embedded GPT model's performance and its comparison with GPT3.5 turbo. For content validation, a quantitative Content Validity Index (CVI) was used. The CVI was calculated both at the item level (I-CVI) and scale level (S-CVI/Ave). To adjust I-CVI for chance agreement, a modified kappa statistic (K*) was computed.

resultsThe overall content validity of responses generated via embedded GPT model and ChatGPT was 65.62% and 61.87% respectively. Moreover, the embedded GPT model revealed a superior performance surpassing ChatGPT with an accuracy of 62.5% and clarity of 72.5%. In contrast, the responses generated via ChatGPT achieved slightly lower scores, with an accuracy of 52.5% and clarity of 67.5%. However, both models performed equally well in terms of relevance and up-to-date knowledge.

conclusionIn conclusion, embedded GPT model showed better results as compared to ChatGPT in providing post-operative dental care emphasizing the benefits of embedding and prompt engineering, paving the way for future advancements in healthcare applications.

Identifiers

PMID38866751
PMCPMC11169374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.