ArticleBMC oral health2025
Diagnostic accuracy of generative large language artificial intelligence models for the assessment of dental crowding.
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 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.
- Generative Artificial Intelligence-driven orthodontic education practices.BMC medical education · 2026Review
- Bi-linguistic performance of large language models in multimodal analysis for differentiating jawbone-destroying malignancy from osteomyelitis.BMC oral health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) models have shown potential for addressing text-based dental enquiries and answering exam questions. However, their role in diagnosis and treatment planning has not been thoroughly investigated. This study aimed to investigate the reliability of different generative AI models in classifying the severity of dental crowding.
methodsTwo experienced orthodontists categorized the severity of dental crowding in 120 intraoral occlusal images as mild, moderate, or severe (40 images per category). These images were then uploaded to three generative AI models (ChatGPT-4o mini, Microsoft Copilot, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet) and prompted to identify the dental arch and to assess the severity of dental crowding. Response times were recorded, and outputs were compared to orthodontists' assessments. A random image subset was re-analyzed after one week to evaluate model consistency.
resultsClaude 3.5 Sonnet successfully classified the severity of dental crowding in 50% of the images, followed by ChatGPT-4o mini (44%), and Copilot (34%). Visual recognition of the dental arches was higher with Claude and ChatGPT-4o mini (99%) compared to Copilot (72%). Response generation was significantly longer for ChatGPT-4o mini than for Claude and Copilot (p < .0001). However, the response times were comparable for both Claude and Copilot (p = .98). Repeated analyses showed improvement in image classification for both ChatGPT-4o mini and Copilot, while Claude 3.5 Sonnet misclassified a significant portion of the images.
conclusionsThe performance of ChatGPT-4o mini-, Microsoft Copilot, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet in analyzing the severity of dental crowding often did not match the evaluations made by orthodontists. Further developments in image processing algorithms of commercially available generative AI models are required prior to reliable use for dental crowding classification.
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.