ArticleBMC medical education2025
Comparison of ChatGPT-4o and expert evaluation in endodontic education: a cross-sectional pilot study.
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 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.
- Comparison of artificial intelligence-based chatbots and expert periodontists in responding to patient questions: a multi-dimensional analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- ChatGPT-4o in delirium recognition: a pilot study.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- The role of artificial intelligence in the authorship of scientific articles in dentistry: ethical approaches for responsible use.Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to enhance objectivity and scalability in educational assessment, yet its role in evaluating technical dental skills remains unclear. This study aimed to compare ChatGPT-4o based assessments with expert evaluations in undergraduate endodontic training and to explore student perceptions of AI-assisted feedback.
methodsThis cross-sectional pilot study was conducted during the 2024-2025 academic year with 32 dental students from a faculty of dentistry, who completed root canal treatments. Postoperative radiographs were evaluated by 10 years experienced endodontist and ChatGPT-4o was used to evaluate performance based on five standardized criteria: canal centering, homogeneity, procedural errors, apical shaping, and overall taper, each rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Inter-rater reliability was assessed via intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Pearson correlation tested linear alignment. Students rated both feedback sources via Likert-scale questionnaires and open-ended comments; paired-sample t-tests compared the mean scores.
resultsAgreement between AI and expert evaluation was limited, with ICC ranging from 0.36 to 0.45, indicating poor to moderate reliability. Pearson r values were < 0.3 and not statistically significant, demonstrating weak linear correlation. While students rated AI-generated feedback as moderately useful, expert feedback scored higher across educational value (mean 4.29 vs. 3.90), clinical reasoning support (4.19 vs. 4.06), and reliability (4.00 vs. 3.91); differences were not statistically significant. Notably, 53.1% of students preferred a combination of AI and expert feedback for optimal learning.
conclusionsAI-generated feedback was moderately useful to students, but expert feedback consistently scored higher. For complex psychomotor skills and radiographic interpretation, AI should serve as an auxiliary tool rather than an independent assessor. Further validation of advanced multimodal AI systems and development of hybrid frameworks combining algorithmic objectivity with expert judgment are recommended.
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.