ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Effectiveness of various general large language models in clinical consensus and case analysis in dental implantology: a comparative study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. 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.
- Comparative Performance of AI Models and Clinicians in Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Disease Management for People Living With HIV: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models for Reporting Jaw Lesions on Panoramic Radiographs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of AI Chatbot Responses to a Standardized Patient Query on Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein Antibody-Associated Disease: Cross-Sectional Content Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok in clinical decision-making and general knowledge assessment for impacted maxillary canines.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Can artificial intelligence optimize treatment planning and outcome prediction in fixed tooth- and implant-supported prosthodontics? A scoping review.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluating the performance of AI chatbots in responding to dental implant FAQs: A comparative study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- A multi-dimensional performance evaluation of large language models in dental implantology: comparison of ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Grok, Gemini and Qwen across diverse clinical scenarios.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Foundation models and intelligent decision-making: Progress, challenges, and perspectives.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2025Review
- Accuracy and reliability of Manus, ChatGPT, and Claude in case-based dental diagnosis.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Article
- Comparing Manual and ChatGPT Deep Research on Systematic Search and Selection in the PubMed Database on the Topic of Dental Implantology.International journal of dentistry · 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
backgroundThis study evaluates and compares ChatGPT-4.0, Gemini Pro 1.5(0801), Claude 3 Opus, and Qwen 2.0 72B in answering dental implant questions. The aim is to help doctors in underserved areas choose the best LLMs(Large Language Model) for their procedures, improving dental care accessibility and clinical decision-making.
methodsTwo dental implant specialists with over twenty years of clinical experience evaluated the models. Questions were categorized into simple true/false, complex short-answer, and real-life case analyses. Performance was measured using precision, recall, and Bayesian inference-based evaluation metrics.
resultsChatGPT-4 exhibited the most stable and consistent performance on both simple and complex questions. Gemini Pro 1.5(0801)performed well on simple questions but was less stable on complex tasks. Qwen 2.0 72B provided high-quality answers for specific cases but showed variability. Claude 3 opus had the lowest performance across various metrics. Statistical analysis indicated significant differences between models in diagnostic performance but not in treatment planning.
conclusionsChatGPT-4 is the most reliable model for handling medical questions, followed by Gemini Pro 1.5(0801). Qwen 2.0 72B shows potential but lacks consistency, and Claude 3 Opus performs poorly overall. Combining multiple models is recommended for comprehensive medical decision-making.
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.