ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT in second mesiobuccal canal detection.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe presence of a second mesiobuccal canal (MB2) in maxillary first molars is a critical factor in endodontic success. Accurate identification and treatment of this canal significantly reduce the risk of persistent infection and treatment failure. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT in identifying MB2 canals using structured data derived from CBCT images.
methodsThis retrospective study included 400 CBCT scans obtained from patients aged 18–60. Structured data derived from axial, coronal, and sagittal CBCT slices were evaluated by both an experienced endodontist and ChatGPT. Images were preprocessed using ImageJ software for enhanced clarity. The model was asked to classify each case as MB2 present or absent. Model predictions were compared with expert evaluations. Diagnostic performance was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values and Cohen’s Kappa coefficient.
resultsChatGPT predicted MB2 presence in 228 cases, 227 of which were confirmed by expert evaluation. Eight false negatives and one false positive were observed. The model achieved 96.6% sensitivity, 99.4% specificity, and 97.8% overall accuracy, with a Cohen’s Kappa coefficient of 0.954 (p < 0.001).
conclusionsChatGPT demonstrated high agreement with expert analysis using structured CBCT data. Despite not processing raw image data, the model showed strong pattern recognition capabilities. These findings support the potential of language models in clinical decision support, although further refinement and multimodal integration are recommended.
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.