ArticleBMC oral health2025
ChatGPT and oral cancer: a study on informational reliability.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative analysis of large language models for providing oral cavity cancer information.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of embedded chatbot models and ChatGPT-4 for answering orthodontic treatment queries.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Deepseek on endodontic exam questions in Turkish and English.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the performance of four different large language models (ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Copilot, and Gemini) in answering oral, and maxillofacial radiology questions: pilot study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of the performance of large Language models in the dentistry specialty examination.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT large language models and expert clinicians in complex oral and maxillofacial diseases.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of deepseek, gemini, ChatGPT-4o, and perplexity in responding to salivary gland cancer.BMC oral health · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have transformed information retrieval, including in healthcare. ChatGPT, trained on diverse datasets, can provide medical advice but faces ethical and accuracy concerns. This study evaluates the accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5's answers to frequently asked questions about oral cancer, a condition where early diagnosis is crucial for improving patient outcomes.
methodsA total of 20 questions were asked to ChatGPT-3.5, selected from Google Trends and questions asked by patients in the clinic. The responses provided by ChatGPT were evaluated for accuracy by medical oncologists and oral and maxillofacial radiologists. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using Fleiss's and Cohen kappa tests. The scores given by the specialties were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test. The references provided by ChatGPT-3.5 were evaluated for authenticity.
resultsOf the 80 responses from 20 questions, 41 (51.25%) were rated as very good, 37 (46.25%) as good, 2 (2.50%) as acceptable. There was no significant difference between oral and maxillofacial radiologists and medical oncologists in all 20 questions. Of the 81 references to ChatGPT-3.5 answers, only 13 were scientific articles, 10 were fake, and the remaining references were data from websites.
conclusionChatGPT provided reliable information about oral cancer and did not provide incorrect information and suggestions. However, all information provided by ChatGPT is not based on real references.
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.