ArticleJMIR AI2025
The Diagnostic Performance of Large Language Models and Oral Medicine Consultants for Identifying Oral Lesions in Text-Based Clinical Scenarios: Prospective Comparative Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Artificial Intelligence in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Trajectory-aware risk stratification of oral lichen planus using a multimodal large language model: a longitudinal diagnostic accuracy study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-5 vs oral medicine experts for rank-based differential diagnosis of oral lesions: a prospective, biopsy-validated comparison.Odontology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic and localization performance of multimodal large language models in the interpretation of dental periapical radiographs.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
- Prompt engineering shapes diagnostic accuracy and explanation quality of LLM in oral lesion diagnosis: a prospective, expert-blinded benchmark study.Odontology · 2026Article
- Factors influencing large language model adoption among dental students: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- AI-Powered Clinical Decision Support in Dentistry: Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models for Oral Medicine and Periodontal Diagnosis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Accuracy of AI Tools in the Diagnosis of Benign, Potentially Malignant and Malignant Oral Lesions: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A Multimodal Large Language Model Framework for Clinical Subtyping and Malignant Transformation Risk Prediction in Oral Lichen Planus: A Paired Comparison With Expert Clinicians.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Digital Dentistry in Clinical Practice: A Scoping Review of Current Capabilities and Future Directions.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Multimodal large language models for oral lesion diagnosis: a systematic review of diagnostic performance and clinical utility.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Vision-based diagnostic gain of ChatGPT-5 and gemini 2.5 pro compared with human experts in oral lesion assessment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- ChatGPT in Oral Pathology: Bright Promise or Diagnostic Mirage.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of artificial intelligence (AI), especially large language models (LLMs), is increasing in health care, including in dentistry. There has yet to be an assessment of the diagnostic performance of LLMs in oral medicine. Objective: We aimed to compare the effectiveness of ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Microsoft Copilot (integrated within the Microsoft 365 suite) with oral medicine consultants in formulating accurate differential and final diagnoses for oral lesions from written clinical scenarios. Methods: Fifty comprehensive clinical case scenarios including patient age, presenting complaint, history of the presenting complaint, medical history, allergies, intra- and extraoral findings, lesion description, and any additional information including laboratory investigations and specific clinical features were given to three oral medicine consultants, who were asked to formulate a differential diagnosis and a final diagnosis. Specific prompts for the same 50 cases were designed and input into ChatGPT and Copilot to formulate both differential and final diagnoses. The diagnostic accuracy was compared between the LLMs and oral medicine consultants. Results: ChatGPT exhibited the highest accuracy, providing the correct differential diagnoses in 37 of 50 cases (74%). There were no significant differences in the accuracy of providing the correct differential diagnoses between AI models and oral medicine consultants. ChatGPT was as accurate as consultants in making the final diagnoses, but Copilot was significantly less accurate than ChatGPT (P=.015) and one of the oral medicine consultants (P<.001) in providing the correct final diagnosis. Conclusions: ChatGPT and Copilot show promising performance for diagnosing oral medicine pathology in clinical case scenarios to assist dental practitioners. ChatGPT-4 and Copilot are still evolving, but even now, they might provide a significant advantage in the clinical setting as tools to help dental practitioners in their daily practice.
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.