ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT large language models and expert clinicians in complex oral and maxillofacial diseases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of dentists and ChatGPT in jawbone lesions.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Bi-linguistic performance of large language models in multimodal analysis for differentiating jawbone-destroying malignancy from osteomyelitis.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
Although Chat Generative Pre-training Transformer (ChatGPT) role in dentistry is being explored, its diagnostic reliability and performance in complex cases remain under-investigated. This study evaluates the ability of ChatGPT-4, 4.0, Mini 4.0, and 3.5 to interpret clinical, imaging, and histopathological data in oral and maxillofacial diseases and compares their diagnostic accuracy with experienced dentists. This study evaluated four ChatGPT versions (GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, and GPT-4) using 50 queries per model. Fifty complex oral and maxillofacial pathology cases were selected from a journal’s clinicopathological section, including clinical, radiographic, and histopathological data. Multiple-choice diagnostic questions were used to compare ChatGPT’s responses with correct answers and diagnoses from two experienced dentists. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (Version 25.0, IBM), with p < 0.05 considered significant. ChatGPT-4o achieved the highest accuracy (70%), followed by ChatGPT-4 (66%), ChatGPT-3.5 (50%), and ChatGPT-4o Mini (46%), while dentists outperformed large language models (LLMs) with 72% accuracy. Cohen’s Kappa test showed the highest agreement among LLMs between ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4o Mini (κ = 0.760), with significant agreement between ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-4 (κ = 0.520). Dentists had the highest agreement (κ = 0.901). Overall, LLMs models showed lower diagnostic accuracy than dentists, but ChatGPT-4o performed closest to expert-level accuracy. This study highlights the potential of advanced ChatGPT versions in assisting with oral lesion detection while also emphasizing the critical role of human expertise in diagnostic accuracy. Collaboration between LLMs and dental professionals can enhance diagnostic precision and improve patient outcomes.
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.