ArticleBMC oral health2025
Large Language model (LLM) in temporomandibular disorder education: a comparative study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the increasing reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare information delivery, it is essential to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated responses. This study aimed to assess the quality of responses provided by three AI-based language models—ChatGPT-4, Gemini, and Copilot—on temporomandibular disorders (TMD), a complex and prevalent group of musculoskeletal conditions.
methodsA total of 83 questions, categorized into seven key domains of TMD (Anatomy, Signs and Symptoms, Etiology, Evaluation and Diagnosis, Treatment Options, Complications, and Prognosis), were presented independently to each AI model. Each response was evaluated and classified into one of five accuracy levels: False, Nonfactual, Minimal Facts, Selected Facts, and Objectively True. Statistical analysis, including Pearson Chi-Square and Fisher’s Exact tests, was conducted to determine the relationship between AI model and response accuracy.
resultsChatGPT-4 produced the highest proportion of Objectively True answers (78.3%), significantly outperforming Gemini (53%) and Copilot (20.5%) (p < 0.05). Gemini’s responses predominantly consisted of Selected Facts, while Copilot’s outputs were largely incomplete or minimally informative. Statistically significant differences in response accuracy were observed across all thematic domains (p < 0.05).
conclusionChatGPT-4 demonstrated superior reliability in delivering accurate and comprehensive information about TMD, though inconsistencies remain in specific areas such as joint anatomy and prognosis. AI models should undergo rigorous validation before being employed in clinical or patient education settings.
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.