ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Beta testing and clinical evaluation of an artificial intelligence-powered clinical decision support system for endodontic case assessment.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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.
- Comparative benchmark assessment of performance of six different large language models in clinical decision-making for vital pulp therapy.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Structured clinical digital decision support may help reduce variability in endodontic diagnosis, case difficulty assessment, and referral communication. Aim: To evaluate the agreement between a structured clinical decision support system for endodontic case assessment and independent expert endodontist judgement. Materials and Methods: Sixty anonymised simulated endodontic cases were entered into a previously developed clinical decision support system. Thirty cases were entered by an endodontist and thirty by a general dental practitioner. System-generated diagnostic and treatment assessments were independently reviewed by two blinded endodontists using standardised diagnostic terminology. Independent expert judgement served as the reference standard. Proportion agreement with 95% confidence intervals was calculated using the Wilson method. Results: Agreement with the expert reference standard ranged from 83% to 97%. Inter-operator agreement between reviewers was 95%. Discrepancies were primarily associated with incomplete clinical information. Conclusion: The system demonstrated close alignment with expert judgement in this exploratory evaluation. Structured digital prescriptions may support consistent diagnostic reasoning while preserving clinician oversight.
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.