ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Assessing the performance of an artificial intelligence based chatbot in the differential diagnosis of oral mucosal lesions: clinical validation study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Commercial large language models for oral cavity cancer staging using descriptive pre-treatment MRI reports: ready for standalone use in clinical practice?Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Article
- ChatGPT-5 vs oral medicine experts for rank-based differential diagnosis of oral lesions: a prospective, biopsy-validated comparison.Odontology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Contemporary Large Language Models on Free-Text Histopathologic Descriptions in Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology.Head and neck pathology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of generative pre-trained transformers for text- and image-based cephalometric prompts using a novel Artificial Intelligence Based Diagnosis and Treatment Planning Index (AIDTI).BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Prompt engineering shapes diagnostic accuracy and explanation quality of LLM in oral lesion diagnosis: a prospective, expert-blinded benchmark study.Odontology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence chatbots in oral pathology: a scoping review of applications, accuracy, and limitations.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Digital Dentistry in Clinical Practice: A Scoping Review of Current Capabilities and Future Directions.International dental journal · 2026Article
- AI-assisted image analysis ofBioinformation · 2026Article
- Vision-based diagnostic gain of ChatGPT-5 and gemini 2.5 pro compared with human experts in oral lesion assessment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Performance of AI Chatbots in Preliminary Diagnosis of Maxillofacial Pathologies.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Comparison of responses from different artificial intelligence-powered chatbots regarding the All-on-four dental implant concept.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI) is becoming more popular in medicine. The current study aims to investigate, primarily, if an AI-based chatbot, such as ChatGPT, could be a valid tool for assisting in establishing a differential diagnosis of oral mucosal lesions.
methodsData was gathered from patients who were referred to our clinic for an oral mucosal biopsy by one oral medicine specialist. Clinical description, differential diagnoses, and final histopathologic diagnoses were retrospectively extracted from patient records. The lesion description was inputted into ChatGPT version 4.0 under a uniform script to generate three differential diagnoses. ChatGPT and an oral medicine specialist's differential diagnosis were compared to the final histopathologic diagnosis.
results100 oral soft tissue lesions were evaluated. A statistically significant correlation was found between the ability of the Chatbot and the Specialist to accurately diagnose the cases (P < 0.001). ChatGPT demonstrated remarkable sensitivity for diagnosing urgent cases, as none of the malignant lesions were missed by the chatbot. At the same time, the specificity of the specialist was higher in cases of malignant lesion diagnosis (p < 0.05). The chatbot performance was reliable in two different events (p < 0.01).
conclusionChatGPT-4 has shown the ability to pinpoint suspicious malignant lesions and suggest an adequate differential diagnosis for soft tissue lesions, in a consistent and repetitive manner. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study serves as a primary insight into the role of AI chatbots, as assisting tools in oral medicine and assesses their clinical capabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40097790What 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.