ArticleScientific reports2025
Vision-based diagnostic gain of ChatGPT-5 and gemini 2.5 pro compared with human experts in oral lesion assessment.
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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of topical erythropoietin gel and mouthwash for recurrent aphthous stomatitis in a randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Trajectory-aware risk stratification of oral lichen planus using a multimodal large language model: a longitudinal diagnostic accuracy study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional evaluation of Large Language Model answers to dental questions.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Referral patterns to a Middle Eastern oral medicine service: a retrospective analysis.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Contemporary Large Language Models on Free-Text Histopathologic Descriptions in Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology.Head and neck pathology · 2026Article
- MultiDentNet: a unified deep learning framework for multi-class dental condition screening and preliminary oral lesion triage.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Abstraction-dependent diagnostic performance of a multimodal foundation model in oral epithelial dysplasia.Odontology · 2026Article
- Risk classification of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) using explainable machine learning through a community-based cross-sectional study in rural India.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the clinical safety of large language models in oral cancer-related patient communication: a repeated-prompt observational study.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- Prompt engineering shapes diagnostic accuracy and explanation quality of LLM in oral lesion diagnosis: a prospective, expert-blinded benchmark study.Odontology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Versus Human Dental Expertise in Diagnosing Periapical Pathosis on Periapical Radiographs: A Multicenter Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Calibration of AI large language models with human subject matter experts for grading of clinical short-answer responses in dental education.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Can large language models provide quality, reliable and readable information about sudden infant death syndrome?BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Multimodal large language models for oral lesion diagnosis: a systematic review of diagnostic performance and clinical utility.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
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
The diagnostic potential of multimodal large language models (LLMs) in oral medicine remains underexplored, particularly in real-world clinical contexts. This study introduces Vision-Based Diagnostic Gain (VWDG) as a novel metric to quantify the incremental diagnostic value of incorporating images into AI-assisted diagnosis of oral lesions. We conducted a prospective, biopsy-validated, case-matched study including 200 oral lesion cases with clinical photographs and radiographs of variable quality. ChatGPT-5 and Gemini 2.5 Pro were evaluated against board-certified oral medicine experts. Each case was presented under two conditions: text-only and multimodal (text plus images). Diagnostic accuracy was measured across Top-1, Top-3, and Top-5 differentials. VWDG was defined as the absolute and relative improvement in diagnostic accuracy between multimodal and text-only conditions. Cochran's Q and paired McNemar tests with effect sizes quantified differences across models and conditions, with analyses stratified by lesion type and diagnostic difficulty Both models demonstrated strong baseline diagnostic accuracy, but their performance diverged with image integration. ChatGPT-5 achieved significant VWDG across thresholds-Top-1 gain + 19% points, Top-3 gain + 18 pp, and Top-5 gain + 14 pp (all p < 0.001). In contrast, Gemini 2.5 Pro showed negligible or even negative gain (0 pp at Top-1/Top-3; - 2 pp at Top-5). Stratified analyses confirmed that ChatGPT-5 benefited most from visual input in malignant and diagnostically difficult cases, whereas Gemini's strength remained in text-dominant contexts. Human experts consistently outperformed both models in simple and benign presentations. By introducing and applying VWDG, this study provides the first expert-anchored, head-to-head evaluation of next-generation multimodal LLMs in oral medicine. ChatGPT-5 functions as a visual synergist, Gemini as a textual expert, and their complementary strengths suggest a cooperative human-AI diagnostic paradigm. VWDG offers a clinically meaningful framework for benchmarking AI models and guiding safe, context-aware integration into practice.
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.