ArticleBMC medical education2025
Performance comparison of large language models on pediatric dentistry questions in the Turkish dentistry specialization examination.
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 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.
- Accuracy of large language models in the Turkish dental specialization examination (DUS): a multidimensional evaluation across disciplines and question formats.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative diagnostic accuracy of multiple large language models in oral and maxillofacial radiology specialty examinations: a 13-year analysis of performance and topic trends.BMC oral health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background/purposeThis study aimed to compare the performance of seven leading large language models (Gemini 2.5 Pro, Grok-4, GPT-5, Claude-4, Copilot, Perplexity, and GPT-4o) on pediatric dentistry questions from the Turkish Dentistry Specialization Examination (DUS), and to identify differences in their performance on information-based versus case-based question types. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeven large language models (Gemini 2.5 Pro, Grok-4, GPT-5, Claude-4, Copilot, Perplexity, and GPT-4o) were evaluated on 127 multiple-choice questions from the DUS pediatric dentistry question bank (2012-2021), classified by experts as information-based (n = 96) and case-based (n = 31). Questions were input in Turkish without modification, and responses were assessed against official answer keys.
resultsSignificant differences were observed in overall accuracy rates (p < 0.001). The highest overall accuracy was recorded for Gemini 2.5 Pro (94.5%; 120/127), while the lowest performance was seen with GPT-4o (63.0%; 80/127). For information-based questions, Gemini answered 92/96 correctly (95.8%) and GPT-4o 66/96 (68.7%); for case-based questions, Gemini answered 28/31 correctly (90.3%) and Perplexity 5/31 (16.1%). Pairwise Wilcoxon comparisons statistically supported Gemini's significant superiority over many models and the notably weak performance of GPT-4o and Perplexity on case-based questions (p < 0.001).
conclusionsLLMs can serve as effective "co‑pilots" for information retrieval and exam preparation in dental education but are currently unreliable for diagnostic and treatment decision‑making. Clinicians and students should use LLM outputs for review and learning while retaining final decisions based on professional experience, ethical responsibility, and patient‑centered judgment. Future research should evaluate and enhance LLMs' multimodal and visual‑data processing capabilities to improve clinical applicability.
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.