ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of ChatGPT-4's performance on pediatric dentistry questions: accuracy and completeness analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- Bloom's taxonomy-based comparison of artificial intelligence and dental students in restorative dentistry.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models for Reporting Jaw Lesions on Panoramic Radiographs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluating the clinical decision-making performance of large language models in clinically oriented thoracic anatomy scenarios: a comparative evaluation study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of large language models for patient-oriented support in dental trauma emergencies.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative performance evaluation of ChatGPT-4 Omni and Gemini Advanced in the Turkish Dentistry Specialization Exam.BMC medical education · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer-4 (ChatGPT-4) responses to frequently asked questions (FAQs) posed by patients and parents, as well as curricular questions related to pediatric dentistry. Additionally, it sought to determine whether the ChatGPT-4's performance varied across different question topics.
methodsResponses from ChatGPT-4 to 30 FAQs by patients and parents and 30 curricular questions covering six pediatric dentistry topics (fissure sealants, fluoride, early childhood caries, oral hygiene practices, development of dentition and occlusion, and pulpal therapy) were evaluated by 30 pediatric dentists. Accuracy was rated using a five-point Likert scale, while completeness was assessed via a three-point scale, capturing distinct aspects of response quality. Statistical analyses included Fisher's Exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc comparisons.
resultsChatGPT-4's responses demonstrated high overall accuracy across all question types. Mean accuracy scores were 4.21 ± 0.55 for FAQs and 4.16 ± 0.70 for curricular questions, indicating that responses were generally rated as "good" to "excellent" by pediatric dentists, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.942). Completeness scores were moderate overall, with means of 2.51 ± 0.40 (median: 3) and 2.61 ± 1.53 (median: 3) for FAQs and curricular questions, respectively (p = 0.563), reflecting a generally acceptable response coverage. Accuracy scores for curricular questions varied significantly by topic (p = 0.007), with the highest score for fissure sealants (4.45 ± 0.62; median: 5) and the lowest for pulpal therapy (3.93 ± 0.93; median: 4).
conclusionFrom a clinical perspective, ChatGPT-4 demonstrates promising accuracy and acceptable completeness in pediatric dental communication. However, its performance in certain curricular areas-particularly fluoride and pulpal therapy-warrants cautious interpretation and requires professional oversight.
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.