ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of ChatGPT's ability to detect intraosseous pathologies with panoramic radiographs.
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.
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.
- Artificial intelligence for the detection and diagnosis of oral and maxillofacial lesions: evidence, limitations, and future directions.Brazilian oral research · 2026Review
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
backgroundTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of GPT-4 V and GPT-5 in detecting intraosseous jaw lesions on panoramic radiographs and to assess the readability of their responses.
methods119 biopsy-confirmed panoramic radiographs were retrospectively analyzed. Each image was presented to both models with four standardized diagnostic questions. Unguided and region-guided prompting were compared. Information accuracy, relevance, actionability, quality, and readability (Flesch Reading Ease Score and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level) were recorded.
resultsUnguided lesion detection sensitivity was low. With location guidance, lesion identification increased to 73.9% for GPT-4 V and 78.1% for GPT-5; however, diagnostic sensitivity remained limited (31.1% and 36.1%). Information accuracy, relevance, actionability, and quality scores were mostly concentrated in the lower-to-middle range (scores 2–3). No statistically significant differences were found between the models (p > 0.05). Readability analysis showed high textual complexity (mean FKGL 12.8 and 12.7).
conclusionGPT-4 V and GPT-5 did not achieve clinically acceptable diagnostic sensitivity on panoramic radiographs. Further model refinement is required before diagnostic use.
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.