Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40271108›Full record

ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025

Decoding wisdom: Evaluating ChatGPT's accuracy and reproducibility in analyzing orthopantomographic images for third molar assessment.

Ana Suárez, Stefania Arena, Alberto Herranz Calzada, Ana Isabel Castillo Varón, Victor Diaz-Flores García, Yolanda Freire

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ana SuárezDepartment of Pre-Clinic Dentistry II, Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Calle Tajo s/n, Villaviciosa de Odón, Madrid 28670, Spain.
Stefania ArenaDepartment of Pre-Clinic Dentistry II, Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Calle Tajo s/n, Villaviciosa de Odón, Madrid 28670, Spain.
Alberto Herranz CalzadaDepartment of Pre-Clinic Dentistry II, Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Calle Tajo s/n, Villaviciosa de Odón, Madrid 28670, Spain.
Ana Isabel Castillo VarónDepartment of Medicine. Faculty of Medicine, Health and Sports. Universidad Europea de Madrid, Calle Tajo s/n, Villaviciosa de Odón, Madrid 28670, Spain.
Victor Diaz-Flores GarcíaDepartment of Pre-Clinic Dentistry I, Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Calle Tajo s/n, Villaviciosa de Odón, Madrid 28670, Spain.
Yolanda FreireDepartment of Pre-Clinic Dentistry II, Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Calle Tajo s/n, Villaviciosa de Odón, Madrid 28670, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into healthcare has opened new avenues for clinical decision support, particularly in radiology. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT-4o in the radiographic image interpretation of orthopantomograms (OPGs) for assessment of lower third molars, simulating real patient requests for tooth extraction. Thirty OPGs were analyzed, each paired with a standardized prompt submitted to ChatGPT-4o, generating 900 responses (30 per radiograph). Two oral surgery experts independently evaluated the responses using a three-point Likert scale (correct, partially correct/incomplete, incorrect), with disagreements resolved by a third expert. ChatGPT-4o achieved an accuracy rate of 38.44 % (95 % CI: 35.27 %-41.62 %). The percentage agreement among repeated responses was 82.7 %, indicating high consistency, though Gwet's coefficient of agreement (60.4 %) suggested only moderate repeatability. While the model correctly identified general features in some cases, it frequently provided incomplete or fabricated information, particularly in complex radiographs involving overlapping structures or underdeveloped roots. These findings highlight ChatGPT-4o's current limitations in dental radiographic interpretation. Although it demonstrated some capability in analyzing OPGs, its accuracy and reliability remain insufficient for unsupervised clinical use. Professional oversight is essential to prevent diagnostic errors. Further refinement and specialized training of AI models are needed to enhance their performance and ensure safe integration into dental practice, especially in patient-facing applications.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceChatGPTDentistryOral surgeryOrthopantomography

Identifiers

PMID40271108
PMCPMC12017887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.