ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Comparison of Different Artificial Intelligence Tools in Regard to Forensic Dentistry: A Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the performance, accuracy, and usability of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in forensic dentistry, providing insights into their application in identifying individuals and analyzing dental records. Materials and Methods: Three AI tools-Tool A, Tool B, and Tool C-were assessed using a dataset of anonymized dental records, focusing on accuracy in identification, processing speed, and user satisfaction. Quantitative and qualitative metrics were analyzed. Results: Tool A demonstrated superior accuracy (92%) but slower processing times. Tool B achieved faster results but slightly lower accuracy (88%). Tool C provided a balance, with moderate accuracy (89%) and processing speed. User satisfaction scores highlighted the ease of use of Tool C. Conclusion: While all tools showed promise, their selection should depend on specific forensic needs, prioritizing either speed, accuracy, or usability.
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.