Observational studyOral and maxillofacial surgery2026
Evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT-4 generated references in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a preliminary observational study.
Observational study in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 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.
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
backgroundLarge language models such as ChatGPT are increasingly used in biomedical writing; however, their ability to generate accurate and verifiable references in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) remains uncertain.
methodsThis cross-sectional observational study evaluated references generated by ChatGPT-4 in response to ten standardized OMS prompts. A total of 500 Vancouver-style references were verified against PubMed, CrossRef, Google Scholar, and publisher databases and classified as accurate, partially correct, or fabricated.
resultsOf the 500 references, 203 (40.6%) were accurate, 165 (33.0%) were partially correct, and 132 (26.4%) were fabricated. Accuracy varied across subspecialties, with the highest accuracy observed in maxillofacial trauma and the lowest in oral pathology and oncology. Inter-reviewer agreement was excellent (κ = 0.87).
conclusionChatGPT-4 demonstrates inconsistent citation accuracy in OMS. AI-generated references should be independently verified prior to scholarly use to maintain academic integrity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41862667What 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.