Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41168327›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Prompt-dependent performance of multimodal AI model in oral diagnosis: a comprehensive analysis of accuracy, narrative quality, calibration, and latency versus human experts.

Fatma E A Hassanein, Yousra Ahmed, Shaymaa Maher, Ahmed El Barbary, Asmaa Abou-Bakr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Accuracy and Error Patterns of References Generated by Large Language Models in Endodontics: The Role of Prompt Design and Model Selection.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Fatma E A HassaneinOral Medicine, Periodontology, and Oral Diagnosis, Faculty of Dentistry, King Salman International University, El Tor, South Sinai, Egypt. fatma.hassanein@ksiu.edu.eg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-8010-9265
Yousra AhmedProsthodontics Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Salman International University, El Tur, South Sinai, Egypt.
Shaymaa MaherEndodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Galala University, Suez, Egypt.
Ahmed El BarbaryOral Medicine and Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.
Asmaa Abou-BakrOral Medicine and Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Galala University, Suez, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prompt design is a critical yet underexplored factor influencing the diagnostic performance of large language models (LLMs). Gemini Pro 2.5 shows promise in multimodal reasoning, but no prior study has systematically compared prompt structures in oral datasets against expert benchmarks. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a multimodal LLM (Gemini Pro 2.5) under different prompting strategies compared with oral medicine experts using prospective, histopathology-verified clinical vignettes. In a prospective, paired diagnostic accuracy study, Gemini pro 2.5 (a multimodal LLM) was evaluated under three prompting strategies: Direct (P-1), Chain-of-Thought (P-2), and Self-Reflection (P-3) on 300 oral lesion cases with histopathologic confirmation. Each prompt was applied to identical inputs and compared against diagnoses from board-certified oral medicine specialists. Accuracy, rubric-based narrative quality, probability calibration, and computational efficiency were assessed under STARD-AI guidelines. Human experts achieved the highest Top-1 accuracy (61%), but Chain-of-Thought prompting (P-2) led AI performance in Top-3 accuracy (82%) and produced the highest explanation quality (mean rubric score 8.49/10). No AI prompt matched human performance in low-difficulty cases. P-2 also showed the best calibration (Brier score 0.238) compared to P-1 and P-3. Resource-wise, Direct prompting was fastest, but longer outputs modestly improved Top-3 recall. Mixed-effects modeling confirmed that AI performance varied significantly by prompt structure, highlighting context-specific trade-offs. Prompt structure significantly affects the diagnostic performance and interpretability of AI-generated differentials in oral lesion diagnosis. While expert clinicians remain superior in straightforward cases, structured prompting, particularly Chain-of-Thought, may enhance AI reliability in complex diagnostic scenarios. These findings support the integration of prompt engineering into AI-assisted diagnostic tools to augment clinical decision-making in oral medicine.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDiagnosis, OralCalibrationFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesArtificial intelligenceClinical decision supportDiagnostic accuracyGemini proHistopathologyMultimodal LLMsOral diagnosisOral lesionsPrompt engineering

Identifiers

PMID41168327
PMCPMC12575769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.