ArticleBMC medical education2025
Evaluating and comparing student responses in examinations from the perspectives of human and artificial intelligence (GPT-4 and Gemini).
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
- Accuracy and Temporal Consistency of ChatGPT and Gemini in Responding to Textbook and Patient-Oriented Dental Bleaching Questions: A Multi-Session Comparative Study.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Bloom's taxonomy-based comparison of artificial intelligence and dental students in restorative dentistry.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
backgroundGenerative Artificial Intelligence (AI) models, such as ChatGPT (GPT-4) and Gemini, offer potential benefits in educational settings, including dental education. These tools have shown promise in enhancing learning and assessment processes, particularly in dental prosthetic technology (DPT) and oral health (OH) programs.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and consistency of GPT-4 and Gemini AI models in answering examination questions in dental education. The study focused on multiple-choice questions (MCQs), true/false (T/F) questions, and short-answer questions (SAQs).
methodsAn exploratory study design was used with 30 questions (10 MCQs, 10 T/F, and 10 SAQs) covering key topics in DPT and OH education. ChatGPT and Gemini were tested with the same set of questions on two separate occasions to assess consistency. Responses were evaluated by two independent researchers using a predefined answer key. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the Kappa coefficient for agreement, and the Chi-square test for categorical variables.
resultsChatGPT demonstrated high accuracy in MCQs (90%) and T/F questions (85%) but showed reduced performance in SAQs (60%). Gemini's accuracy ranged between 60% and 70%, with the highest accuracy in SAQs (70%). ChatGPT showed significant consistency across testing dates (Kappa = 0.754; p = 0.001), whereas Gemini's responses were less consistent (Kappa = 0.634; p = 0.001).
conclusionWhile both AI models offer valuable support in dental education, ChatGPT exhibited greater accuracy and consistency in structured assessments. The findings suggest that AI tools can enhance teaching and assessment methods if integrated thoughtfully, supporting personalized learning while maintaining academic integrity.
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.