ArticlePloS one2025
How valuable are the questions and answers generated by large language models in oral and maxillofacial surgery?
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Performance of State-of-the-Art LLMs on the KDLE: A 2025 Benchmark Study.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Bi-linguistic performance of large language models in multimodal analysis for differentiating jawbone-destroying malignancy from osteomyelitis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn this study, we aim to evaluate the ability of large language models (LLM) to generate questions and answers in oral and maxillofacial surgery.
methodsChatGPT4, ChatGPT4o, and Claude3-Opus were evaluated in this study. Each LLM was instructed to generate 50 questions about oral and maxillofacial surgery. Three LLMs were asked to answer the generated 150 questions.
resultsAll 150 questions generated by the three LLMs were related to oral and maxillofacial surgery. Each model exhibited a correct answer rate of over 90%. None of the three models were able to answer correctly all the questions they generated themselves. The correct answer rate was 97.0% for questions with figures, significantly higher than the 88.9% rate for questions without figures. The analysis of problem-solving by the three LLMs showed that each model generally inferred answers with high accuracy, and there were few logical errors that could be considered controversial. Additionally, all three scored above 88% for the fidelity of their explanations.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that while LLMs like ChatGPT4, ChatGPT4o, and Claude3-Opus exhibit robust capabilities in generating and solving oral and maxillofacial surgery questions, their performance is not without limitations. None of the models were able to answer correctly all the questions they generated themselves, highlighting persistent challenges such as AI hallucinations and contextual understanding gaps. The results also emphasize the importance of multimodal inputs, as questions with annotated images achieved higher accuracy rates compared to text-only prompts. Despite these shortcomings, the LLMs showed significant promise in problem-solving, logical consistency, and response fidelity, particularly in structured or numerical contexts.
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.