ArticleJournal of Yeungnam medical science2025
Performance of large language models in fluoride-related dental knowledge: a comparative evaluation study of ChatGPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Copilot, and Grok 3.
Article in Journal of Yeungnam medical science, 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.
- Evaluating the clinical decision-making performance of large language models in clinically oriented thoracic anatomy scenarios: a comparative evaluation study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- What should researchers do in the era of artificial intelligence?Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have rapidly emerged as valuable tools in medical and dental education that support clinical reasoning, patient communication, and academic instruction. However, their effectiveness in conveying specialized content, such as fluoride-related dental knowledge, requires a thorough evaluation. This study assesses the performance of four advanced LLMs-ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI), Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic), Microsoft Copilot, and Grok 3 (xAI)-in addressing fluoride-related topics in dentistry.
methodsA cross-sectional comparative analysis was conducted using a mixed methods framework. Fifty multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and ten open-ended questions covering fluoride chemistry, clinical applications, and safety concerns were administered to each LLM. Open-ended responses were scored by two blinded expert raters using a four-dimensional rubric of accuracy, depth, clarity, and evidence. Interrater agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa and Spearman's rank correlation tests. Statistical comparisons were performed using analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, and post-hoc tests.
resultsAll models demonstrated high MCQ accuracy (88%-94%). Claude 3.5 Sonnet consistently achieved the highest average scores for the open-ended responses, particularly in the clarity dimension, with a statistically significant difference (p=0.009). Minor differences of 0.1 to 0.6 points between models in accuracy, depth, and evidence dimensions were observed but did not reach statistical significance. Despite minor differences across dimensions, all LLMs exhibited a strong performance in conveying fluoride-related dental content. Interrater agreement in model rankings was generally strong, supporting the reliability of the comparative outcomes.
conclusionAdvanced LLMs have substantial potential as supplementary tools for dental education and patient communication regarding fluoride use. Claude 3.5 Sonnet showed a notable advantage in terms of linguistic clarity, highlighting its value in educational contexts. Ongoing evaluation, clinical validation, and oversight are essential to ensure safe and effective integration of LLM into dentistry.
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.