ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluating the reliability of artificial intelligence in clinical decisions on early maxillary expansion: a comparative study of eight large language models.
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 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.
- Accuracy of large language models in the Turkish dental specialization examination (DUS): a multidimensional evaluation across disciplines and question formats.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Factors influencing large language model adoption among dental students: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to provide health-related information, yet their clinical reliability remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and readability of AI-based LLMs in providing evidence-based guidance on early maxillary expansion for children in the primary and mixed dentition phases, assessing their potential as trustworthy resources for parental decision-making. MATERIALS AND
methodsEight LLMs (DeepSeek V3, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude 4.5 Sonnet, MediSearch, Copilot, GPT-5, GPT-4o, and Grok) were tasked with responding to a total of 20 questions reflecting common parental concerns about early maxillary expansion, with 10 questions assigned to each dentition phase (primary and mixed). Responses were evaluated for accuracy and comprehensiveness, and readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics and appropriate parametric and non-parametric tests based on data distribution, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsSignificant differences were observed among the LLMs in terms of accuracy, comprehensiveness, and readability (p < 0.001). DeepSeek V3 and Grok achieved the highest scores for both accuracy and comprehensiveness across both dentition phases, with DeepSeek V3 also demonstrating the highest readability in the mixed dentition phase. Copilot, GPT-5, and GPT-4o produced the most readable outputs, as indicated by their highest FRES and lowest FKGL scores, though their content accuracy was comparatively lower. In contrast, MediSearch, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Claude 4.5 Sonnet showed consistently weaker performance across all evaluated criteria.
conclusionThis study concluded that, although some LLMs can offer reliable and understandable information about early maxillary expansion, none consistently excel across all evaluated criteria. In healthcare contexts, integrating scientific accuracy with readability is crucial for supporting informed parental decision-making, enhancing overall health literacy, and strengthening patient–clinician communication. These findings highlight that AI-based LLMs should serve as supplementary tools that support, rather than replace, professional orthodontic guidance.
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.