ArticleOdontology2026
Comparative performance of AI models on case-based oral medicine questions across Bloom's taxonomy levels and subtopics.
Article in Odontology, 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.
- Cognitive-level analysis of dentomaxillofacial radiology questions in the Turkish dentistry specialization examination: a Bloom's revised taxonomy analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Adverse Oral Mucosal Reaction to Sublingual Captopril: A Case Report With Exploratory Insights Into AI-Assisted Clinical Reasoning.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric DentistryArticle
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly used by dental students for self-directed learning, yet their performance in specialty-level subjects like oral medicine remains underexplored. As oral medicine encompasses diagnostic and clinical reasoning across interdisciplinary domains, assessing AI competence in this field is necessary. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of four advanced AI chatbots-ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and DeepSeek-in answering case-based oral medicine multiple choice questions (MCQs) across Bloom's cognitive levels and key subtopics. A total of 114 high-quality, case-based MCQs were developed and validated based on authoritative references. Each question was classified according to Bloom's taxonomy and mapped to one of six oral medicine subdomains. The chatbots' responses were evaluated for accuracy, response time, and word count. Statistical comparisons were performed using Cochrane Q test, Friedman test, McNemar's test, and Cohen's kappa for inter-model agreement. All four chatbots demonstrated high overall accuracy (≥ 97.4%), with Microsoft Copilot showing numerically the highest score (99.1%) although no statistically significant differences were observed among the models. ChatGPT-4 generated the fastest response (mean: 7.0 s), while Copilot provided the most detailed explanations. Performance was consistent across cognitive levels, with near-perfect accuracy in the "Applying" and "Analyzing" domains. Accuracy across subtopics was also high although minor discrepancies were noted in infectious diseases and oral potentially malignant disorders. Inter-chatbot agreement ranged from moderate to perfect (kappa = 0.315-1.00). Advanced AI chatbots, including ChatGPT-4, Copilot, Gemini, and DeepSeek, demonstrated similarly high performance in answering case-based multiple choice questions in oral medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41691106What 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.