ArticleScientific reports2025
Awareness, usage, and perspectives on ChatGPT in dental education among graduate and undergraduate students.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- ChatGPT in medical education: a cross-sectional analysis of usage, attitudes, perceptions, and practices among Saudi medical students.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) related to ChatGPT among undergraduate students and graduates in Karachi, Pakistan, and to analyze an association with sociodemographic factors. A cross-sectional study was conducted over three months using a self-administered, structured questionnaire distributed via online platforms (WhatsApp, and emails). The questionnaire included four sections: demographics, knowledge, attitude, and practice related to ChatGPT. A non-probability convenience sampling technique was employed. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26. Descriptive statistics summarized participant characteristics. Multiple linear regression was used to identify associations between KAP outcomes and sociodemographic variables. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of 347 participants responded, of whom 74.6% were female and 76.4% reported awareness of ChatGPT. Age, designation, and years of experience were significantly associated with knowledge (p = 0.012, 0.001, and 0.001, respectively). Attitude was significantly influenced by age and gender (p = 0.03 and 0.04, respectively), while only gender showed a significant association with perception (p = 0.021). Most respondents considered ChatGPT moderately accurate (54.8%) and acknowledged its usefulness in education and research. Ethical concerns and uncertainty about ChatGPT replacing human roles were also noted. The majority of dental students and professionals in Karachi are aware of ChatGPT and hold a cautiously optimistic view of its role in dental education. While attitudes are generally positive, concerns remain regarding ethical implications and clinical applicability. Structured AI training and clear implementation guidelines are needed to support its effective integration in dental 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.