Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41776530›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2026

Comparative evaluation of artificial intelligence language models on knowledge of dental antibiotic use.

Neslihan Yılmaz Çırakoğlu, Mustafa Doğan, Barış Can Duymaz

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Neslihan Yılmaz ÇırakoğluDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Karabük University, Karabük, 78050, Turkey. neslihanyilmazcirakoglu@karabuk.edu.tr.ORCID 0000-0002-8316-3133
Mustafa DoğanFaculty of Dentistry, Karabük University, Karabük, 78050, Turkey.
Barış Can DuymazFaculty of Dentistry, Karabük University, Karabük, 78050, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence–based large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used across multiple disciplines. In healthcare, as well as in education, research, and information access, the quality, reliability, and accuracy of the responses generated by these models have become a growing concern. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the ability of two prominent LLMs, ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini-1.0, using the most advanced publicly accessible versions at the time of AI access (February 9, 2025), to inform both the public and dental professionals about antibiotic use in dentistry, and to assess the content quality, accuracy, and comprehensiveness of their responses.

methodsA total of 36 questions—comprising 12 multiple-choice, 12 true/false, and 12 open-ended items—were developed and posed to both ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini-1.0, which were the most advanced publicly accessible versions at the time of AI access (February 9, 2025). The responses were independently scored by four expert endodontist dentists on a scale of 1 to 5. Data analyses were performed using SPSS. In addition to descriptive statistics, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare model scores for identical questions, the Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to examine score differences across question types, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess inter-rater reliability.

resultsOverall, responses generated by ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini-1.0 were evaluated, and Gemini’s responses received higher scores than those of ChatGPT. The mean score for ChatGPT was 4.08 ± 0.83 (median = 4.0, interquartile range [IQR] = 1.25), whereas the mean score for Gemini was 4.65 ± 0.58 (median = 5.0, IQR = 1.00), indicating an approximate 0.57-point difference in favor of Gemini. The difference between the two models was statistically significant based on the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p < 0.05). When analyzed by question type, Gemini scored higher than ChatGPT across all categories, including multiple-choice, true/false, and open-ended questions.

conclusionsWhile large language models (LLMs) and AI chatbots, specifically ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini-1.0, demonstrate reasonable performance in providing basic knowledge about antibiotic use in dentistry, their reliability remains limited in areas directly influencing clinical decision-making—particularly those involving patient-specific contraindications and individualized treatment considerations. These findings should be interpreted in the context of the specific model versions evaluated in this study. As LLMs continue to evolve rapidly, future studies using updated models and real-world clinical validation are warranted to further clarify their role as decision-support tools rather than standalone authorities.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsArtificial IntelligenceGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language ModelsReproducibility of ResultsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibioticsArtificial intelligenceLarge language models

Identifiers

PMID41776530
PMCPMC13231621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.