ArticleJournal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology2026
Evaluation of GPT-5, a Large Language Model, in Replicating German Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations in Oral Oncology: A Cross-Sectional Concordance Study.
Article in Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) technologies, particularly large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, are increasingly utilised in medical education and clinical information retrieval. Nevertheless, their capacity to accurately reproduce recommendations from established clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) has not been thoroughly examined. The present study evaluated the concordance between responses generated by GPT-5 and recommendations contained in German CPGs addressing oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) and oral carcinomas (OCs).
methodsA cross-sectional analytical comparison was performed between GPT-5 outputs and German CPG recommendations available as of October 2025. Individual guideline statements were entered verbatim into GPT-5, which was asked to confirm or reject the statements. To assess methodological robustness, inverted versions of the same statements were additionally tested. GPT-5 was accessed through the free version without internet connectivity to ensure that responses originated solely from the model's internal training data. Accuracy was defined as the proportion of correctly classified statements. Concordance between guideline content and model responses was quantified using Cohen's 𝝹.
resultsTwo German CPGs comprising 111 recommendations were included: the S2k guideline for OPMDs (15 recommendations) and the S3 guideline for OCs (96 recommendations). GPT-5 correctly affirmed all authentic recommendations and rejected all inverted statements. Agreement between guideline statements and GPT-5 responses was perfect when the original recommendations were analysed (𝝹 = 1.0) and remained very high when both original and inverted statements were evaluated jointly (𝝹 = 0.96). The majority of references cited within the guidelines were published in English (> 93%) and originated from outside Germany (> 77%).
conclusionWhen guideline recommendations were presented verbatim, GPT-5 demonstrated complete concordance with German oral oncology CPGs. These findings indicate that the model is capable of recognising and retrieving established guideline information. However, this experimental design evaluates recognition of existing statements rather than autonomous clinical reasoning. At present, LLMs should therefore be regarded primarily as educational and informational tools rather than a replacement for expert clinical judgement in oral oncology.
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.