ArticleBMC oral health2026
AI-based diagnostic evaluation of GPT-4o for crown-fracture detection on maxillary periapical radiographs: effects of prompt detail and customization.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimArtificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) are rapidly entering dental imaging workflows. We conducted a diagnostic evaluation of GPT-4o for crown-fracture detection on periapical radiographs and examined how prompt detail and customization (prompt-based; no fine-tuning) affect performance in a positives-only dataset.
methodsIn this single-center, retrospective study, 90 different anonymized maxillary periapical radiographs with at least one crown fracture were evaluated by standard GPT-4o (GPT-4o) and customized GPT-4o (CGPT-4o). Both variants were accessed via a commercial interface (no API parameter control). Customization was achieved via a custom GPT with task instructions and in-context examples; no model parameter fine-tuning was performed. Two different prompts were used: a detailed prompt (DP) and a short prompt (SP). The performance of four different test groups (GPT-4o + DP, GPT-4o + SP, CGPT-4o + DP, CGPT-4o + SP) in detecting crown fractures from periapical radiographs was evaluated. Each group evaluated 90 radiographs in 5 independent runs, yielding a total of 1800 responses. Outputs were scored on an ordinal rubric (0 = incorrect, 1 = partially correct, 2 = correct) by three pediatric dentists. The reference standard was the blinded, independent assessment of these experts with consensus. A proportional-odds mixed model assessed the main and interaction effects of Model and Prompt on the odds of higher ordinal correctness, with random intercepts for radiograph (and runs) and adjustment for fracture grade (G1-G3).
resultsThe analysis revealed that both the main and interaction effects of models and prompts were statistically significant. Specifically, CGPT-4o generated higher odds of ordinal correctness than GPT-4o, and detailed prompts were associated with higher odds of ordinal correctness compared to short prompts. There was a significant Model×Prompt interaction, indicating that correctness depended on the specific model-prompt pairing. Among the four combinations, GPT-4o, with short prompts, exhibited the lowest odds of correctness, whereas no statistically significant differences were observed among the remaining three combinations.
conclusionsThe crown fracture detection performance of GPT-4o was significantly affected by prompt design and customization. Especially for short prompts, customization improved detection performance considerably, and using detailed prompts with the standard GPT-4o improved ordinal correctness. The findings demonstrate the critical importance of task-oriented configuration and prompt engineering in the clinical application of AI-based language models in dental traumatology. The dataset comprised only positive cases from a single center and was limited to the maxillary anterior region. Accordingly, we used an ordinal (0-1-2) localization outcome; specificity and ROC-AUC could not be estimated, and external validity (generalizability) is limited.
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.