ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Performance of Large Language Models in Oral Health Consultations and the Consistency of the 'AI-as-a-Judge' Framework.
Article in International dental journal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of large language models (LLMs) in responding to oral health consultations and to examine the consistency between the AI-as-a-Judge evaluation framework and human expert ratings.
methodsNine oral health questions were selected from the World Dental Federation (FDI) official website and posed to 6 models: GPT-5.0, Gemini-3.0, DeepSeek-V3, Qwen3-Max, Kimi-K2 and Doubao-1.8-Pro. Responses were independently scored by 2 clinicians and 3 AI judges.
resultsSignificant performance differences were observed among the 6 models, with DeepSeek-V3 and Doubao-1.8-Pro achieving the best results. Inter-rater consistency among human experts was good (ICC = 0.860), while consistency among AI judges was low (ICC = 0.538). Human-AI consistency was extremely low (ICC = 0.215) and AI judges exhibited a significantly stricter scoring tendency.
conclusionLeading domestic LLMs have attained competitive performance in oral health consultations. However, the current 'AI-as-a-Judge' framework demonstrates significant inconsistency and bias compared to human experts, suggesting that automated AI evaluation systems are not yet a reliable substitute for human expert review in clinical contexts.
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.