ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Artificial Intelligence Diagnosing of Oral Lichen Planus: A Comparative Study.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Diagnosing Normal Anatomical Variants and Pathological Oral Mucosal Lesions: A Prospective Observational Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Trajectory-aware risk stratification of oral lichen planus using a multimodal large language model: a longitudinal diagnostic accuracy study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models for Diagnostic Accuracy and Health Information Quality in Oral Mucosal Diseases.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Challenges and contributing factors in glucocorticoid treatment adherence among patients with oral lichen planus: a cross-sectional study and management strategies.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A Multimodal Large Language Model Framework for Clinical Subtyping and Malignant Transformation Risk Prediction in Oral Lichen Planus: A Paired Comparison With Expert Clinicians.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Use of Artificial Intelligence for Diagnosing Oral Mucosa Conditions: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Multimodal large language models for oral lesion diagnosis: a systematic review of diagnostic performance and clinical utility.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in the study of oral lichen planus characteristics: a review.BDJ open · 2025Review
- Do LLMs Have 'the Eye' for MRI? Evaluating GPT-4o, Grok, and Gemini on Brain MRI Performance: First Evaluation of Grok in Medical Imaging and a Comparative Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Large Language and Multimodal Models in Detecting Spinal Stabilization Systems on X-Ray Images.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Mucoscopic Features of Oral Lichen Planus: A Retrospective Comparative Study with Inflammatory Mimickers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early diagnosis of oral lichen planus (OLP) is challenging, which traditionally is dependent on clinical experience and subjective interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has been widely applied in objective and rapid diagnoses. In this study, we aim to investigate the potential of AI diagnosis in OLP and evaluate its effectiveness in improving diagnostic accuracy and accelerating clinical decision making. A total of 128 confirmed OLP patients were included, and lesion images from various anatomical sites were collected. The diagnosis was performed using AI platforms, including ChatGPT-4O, ChatGPT (Diagram-Date extension), and Claude Opus, for AI directly identification and AI pre-training identification. After OLP feature training, the diagnostic accuracy of the AI platforms significantly improved, with the overall recognition rates of ChatGPT-4O, ChatGPT (Diagram-Date extension), and Claude Opus increasing from 59%, 68%, and 15% to 77%, 80%, and 50%, respectively. Additionally, the pre-training recognition rates for buccal mucosa reached 94%, 93%, and 56%, respectively. However, the AI platforms performed less effectively when recognizing lesions in less common sites and complex cases; for instance, the pre-training recognition rates for the gums were only 60%, 60%, and 20%, demonstrating significant limitations. The study highlights the strengths and limitations of different AI technologies and provides a reference for future AI applications in oral medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.