ArticleJournal of translational medicine2026
Performance of GPT-5, DeepSeek, and Claude in dental MCQs for medically compromised patients.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2026. 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.
- Evaluating the clinical decision-making performance of large language models in clinically oriented thoracic anatomy scenarios: a comparative evaluation study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Evaluating AI Chatbots in Prosthodontics Education: A Quantitative MCQ-Based Assessment.International journal of dentistry · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has shown remarkable potential in medical education and clinical decision support, yet its role in dentistry—particularly in the management of medically compromised patients—remains largely unexplored. No previous study has systematically benchmarked the performance of advanced large language models (LLMs) in this high-risk domain.
objectiveThis study provides the first comparative evaluation of three LLMs—GPT-5, DeepSeek, and Claude—on multiple-choice questions (MCQs) specifically designed for dental management of medically compromised patients.
methodsA total of 72 validated MCQs were constructed from the 10th edition of Little & Falace’s Dental Management of the Medically Compromised Patient, covering 18 systemic conditions relevant to dental practice. Each model was independently assessed under identical conditions. Accuracy, agreement with the gold standard answers from the textbook, and error patterns were analyzed.
resultsGPT-5 achieved the highest accuracy (90.28%), followed by Claude (88.89%) and DeepSeek (87.50%). Performance varied across systemic conditions, with all models demonstrating lower accuracy in complex scenarios such as infective endocarditis and bleeding disorders. Qualitative analysis revealed differences in reasoning depth, error types, and consistency of responses.
conclusionsThis is the first study to benchmark multiple frontier LLMs in dentistry, focusing on medically compromised patients—a group where safe and accurate decision-making is essential. The findings highlight both the promise and limitations of AI in dental education and clinical guidance. By systematically identifying strengths and weaknesses, this work provides an evidence base for integrating LLMs into dental curricula and decision-support systems, while underscoring the need for human oversight in complex medical cases. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Generative AI models, including GPT-5, DeepSeek, and Claude, demonstrated high accuracy in case-based dental decision-making for medically compromised patients. Their integration could enhance dental education and clinical support. However, variability in performance underscores the need for cautious use and further validation before applying AI tools in complex patient care.
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.