ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative performance analysis of AI-based large language models in assessing cervical vertebral maturation stages on lateral cephalometric radiographs.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of artificial intelligence (AI)-based large language models (LLMs) in predicting cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) stages on lateral cephalometric radiographs.
methodsThis retrospective study evaluated the performance of AI-based LLMs in predicting CVM stages using 120 lateral cephalometric radiographs obtained from individuals aged 6–19 years. The radiographs, which included an equal number of samples from each CVM stage, were independently classified by two experienced orthodontists, with the consensus-established stages serving as the gold standard. Five distinct LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-o3 pro, GPT-5, GPT-5 pro, and Grok-4) were tested in separate sessions using the same command for each image. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, correlation coefficients, Bland–Altman analysis, and mean absolute error (MAE).
resultsExact-match accuracy of the AI-based LLMs ranged between 14% and 28%, while accuracy within ± 1 stage tolerance ranged from 55% to 64%. GPT-4o demonstrated the highest correlation with the reference standard (ρ = 0.616, p < 0.001), followed by GPT-5 pro (ρ = 0.535). Other AI-based LLMs exhibited moderate correlations (ρ = 0.3–0.4). Bland–Altman analyses indicated bias values close to zero but revealed wide limits of agreement. MAE values were comparable across AI-based LLMs, with no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05).
conclusionsCurrent LLMs did not exhibit clinically acceptable agreement with expert CVM assessments, showing wide error margins that limit their clinical utility. LLMs should presently be considered only as supportive tools. Further improvements in training and multimodal model design are needed to improve their diagnostic reliability.
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.