Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41481594›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Comparing large language models and search engine responses to common orthodontic questions.

Yuanyuan Ren, Jing Sun

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yuanyuan RenSchool of Nursing, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Jing SunDepartment of Community Nursing, School of Nursing, Peking University, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2983-8053

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge Language Models (LLMs) highlight their potential in supporting patient education and self-management. Their performance in responses to orthodontic questions has yet to be explored.

objectivesThis study aims to compare the quality, empathy, readability, and satisfaction of responses from LLMs and search engines on common orthodontic questions.

methodsForty-five common orthodontic questions (six categories) and a prompt were developed, and a self-designed multidimensional evaluation questionnaire was constructed. Questions were presented to 5 LLMs and 3 search engines on December,22,2024. The primary outcomes were the median expert-rated scores of LLMs versus search engine responses on quality, empathy, readability, and satisfaction, using 5- or 10-point Likert scales.

resultsLLMs scored significantly higher than search engines in quality (4.00 vs. 3.50, p < 0.001), empathy (3.75 vs. 3.50, p < 0.001), readability (4.00 vs. 3.75, p < 0.001), and satisfaction (8.00 vs. 7.25, p < 0.001). LLM-generated responses were rated significantly higher than those from search engines in therapeutic outcomes category, appliance selection category and cost category.

conclusionsIn this cross-sectional study, the LLMs, particularly GPT-4o, outperformed search engines. These results indicate the potential of LLMs as supplementary tools for orthodontic patient education and self-management.

Indexed as

LanguageOrthodonticsPatient Education as TopicSearch EngineComprehensionFemaleHumansLarge Language ModelsMaleSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41481594
PMCPMC12758715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.