ArticleScientific reports2026
A comparative analysis of embedded chatbot models and ChatGPT-4 for answering orthodontic treatment queries.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient-Facing AI Chatbot Treatment-Direction Advice in Orthodontic Health Communication: A Scenario-Based Comparison with Expert Consensus.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the effectiveness of an embedded chatbot model in delivering orthodontic treatment-related information and compares its performance with the fourth generation of the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT-4, OpenAI, USA), focusing on accuracy, clarity, relevance, and up-to-date knowledge. An embedded chatbot model, designed specifically for orthodontic treatment-related queries, was integrated into a web-based platform. It was compared with ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI, USA) using standardized orthodontic questions. Responses from both models were evaluated by six orthodontic consultants (≥ 5 years of experience) using a 5-point Likert scale. Content validity was assessed using item-level (I-CVI) and scale-level (S-CVI) content validity indices. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The embedded chatbot demonstrated higher content validity and received better scores in accuracy and clarity compared to ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI, USA). A greater number of its responses achieved acceptable I-CVI (≥ 0.78) and S-CVI (≥ 0.8) values. Although the embedded model showed numerical trends favoring its performance over ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI, USA), the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.173). The embedded chatbot model showed improved clarity and validity in orthodontic responses, suggesting potential advantages of domain-specific embedding and prompt engineering. While performance differences were not statistically significant, the findings support the growing role of tailored artificial intelligence (AI) tools in enhancing patient communication and clinical support in orthodontics.
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.