ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
Decoding wisdom: Evaluating ChatGPT's accuracy and reproducibility in analyzing orthopantomographic images for third molar assessment.
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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The performance of large language models in dentomaxillofacial radiology: a systematic review.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Mapping the structure of an emerging field: A scientometric decoding of large language model applications in the dental field.The Japanese dental science review · 2026Article
- Comparison of Multimodal Large Language Models and Oral and Maxillofacial Radiologists in the Detection of Incidental Findings on Panoramic Radiographs: A CBCT-Referenced Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- AI-based diagnostic evaluation of GPT-4o for crown-fracture detection on maxillary periapical radiographs: effects of prompt detail and customization.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Versus Human Dental Expertise in Diagnosing Periapical Pathosis on Periapical Radiographs: A Multicenter Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence as an aid in interpreting thyroid FNA cytopathological images: Are we there yet?Cancer cytopathology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy and repeatability of ChatGPT using textual and radiographic data in reversible pulpitis: a retrospective diagnostic study.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Electromagnetic Navigation in Mandibular Reconstruction Using Autologous Grafts: A Color-Coded Assistance for Precise Positioning of Bone Segments.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of ChatGPT in Corneal Disease Recognition From Slit-Lamp Photographs.Cureus · 2025Article
- ChatGPT in Oral Pathology: Bright Promise or Diagnostic Mirage.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Performance of a Vision-Language Model in Detecting Common Dental Conditions on Panoramic Radiographs Using Different Tooth Numbering Systems.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.