Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40435223›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

How valuable are the questions and answers generated by large language models in oral and maxillofacial surgery?

Kyuhyung Kim, Sae Byeol Mun, Young Jae Kim, Bong Chul Kim, Kwang Gi Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Kyuhyung KimDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Daejeon Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University College of Dentistry, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
Sae Byeol MunDepartment of Health Sciences and Technology, GAIHST, Gachon University, Incheon, Republic of Korea.
Young Jae KimGachon Biomedical & Convergence Institute, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Republic of Korea.
Bong Chul KimDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Daejeon Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University College of Dentistry, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2824-0439
Kwang Gi KimDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, College of IT Convergence, Gachon University, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9714-6038

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

LanguageSurgery, OralHumansLarge Language ModelsProblem Solving

Identifiers

PMID40435223
PMCPMC12119001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.