ArticleBMC oral health2025
Can ChatGPT be trusted? Evaluating AI responses to oral health questions among pregnant Arabic-speaking women.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating ChatGPT's Effectiveness for Arabic Dry Mouth Patient Education.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Can AI chatbots be reliable in dental emergencies? quality assessment of Arabic responses to dental emergency inquiries and public attitudes toward their use.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Readability and Quality of Chatbot Responses to Periodontal Patient Queries: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Three Publicly Accessible Large Language Models.International journal of dentistry · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot developed by OpenAI, is increasingly being used in healthcare, including dentistry, for patient education; this study aimed to assess the usability and quality of ChatGPT's responses to pregnancy-related oral health queries in Saudi Arabia.
methodThis two-part cross-sectional study assessed pregnant Arabic women's perceptions of ChatGPT for oral health queries and evaluated its responses using an online questionnaire. Responses from ChatGPT-4o mini were rated by 5 dental experts with regard to accuracy, clarity, relevance, and acceptance using a 5-point Likert scale.
resultsAmong the 300 participants, 42.0% (126) knew about ChatGPT, 33.7% (101) had previously used it, 14.3% (43) had used it to obtain medical information, 8.7% (26) had used it for dental information, and 8.3% (25) had used it for dental information during pregnancy. Attitudes regarding ChatGPT were rated from 1 to 4. Except for 1 item, the means were all above the midpoint. Attitude ratings ranged from a mean of 2.71 (SD 0.76) for ChatGPT competency to a mean of 2.34 (SD 0.92) for its ability to replace human interactions. However, ChatGPT competency (P = .028), security (P = .015), willingness to use ChatGPT for inquiries (P = .021), ability to assist in informed decision-making (P = .01), willingness to make decisions based on recommendations (P = .024), and persuasiveness (P = .049) were significantly different based on educational level. Pregnant women with higher levels of education rated these aspects significantly lower than those with a high school diploma or bachelor's degree.
conclusionChatGPT provided useful oral health information for pregnant individuals, but its responses required revision and supervision by health professionals. Its usage among pregnant women in Saudi Arabia remained low.
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.