ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluating the influence of prompt formulation on the reliability and repeatability of ChatGPT in implant-supported prostheses.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of artificial intelligence-based chatbots and expert periodontists in responding to patient questions: a multi-dimensional analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- 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
- Evaluation of ChatGPT's Accuracy, Repeatability, and Reasoning Ability in Prosthodontics Education: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study with Prosthodontists.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Performance of ChatGPT-4 as an Auxiliary Tool: Evaluation of Accuracy and Repeatability on Orthodontic Radiology Questions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessing the accuracy, repeatability, and consistency of ChatGPT 4o in treatment planning for tooth-supported fixed prostheses: a comparative analysis of simple and complex clinical cases.Clinical oral investigations · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are widely available to any dental professional. However, there is limited evidence to evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of ChatGPT-4 in relation to implant-supported prostheses, as well as the impact of prompt design on its responses. This constrains understanding of its application within this specific area of dentistry. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT-4 in generating answers about implant-supported prostheses using different prompts. Thirty questions on implant-supported and implant-retained prostheses were posed, with 30 answers generated per question using general and specific prompts, totaling 1800 answers. Experts assessed reliability (agreement with expert grading) and repeatability (response consistency) using a 3-point Likert scale. General prompts achieved 70.89% reliability, with repeatability ranging from moderate to almost perfect. Specific prompts showed higher performance, with 78.8% reliability and substantial to almost perfect repeatability. The specific prompt significantly improved reliability compared to the general prompt. Despite these promising results, ChatGPT's ability to generate reliable answers on implant-supported prostheses remains limited, highlighting the need for professional oversight. Using specific prompts can enhance its performance. The use of a specific prompt might improve the answer generation performance of ChatGPT.
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.