ArticleEuropean journal of orthodontics2026
Exploring LLM-based chatbot effectiveness in answering questions related to the risks and benefits of orthognathic treatment: a cross-sectional study.
Article in European journal of orthodontics, 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.
- Patient-Facing AI Chatbot Treatment-Direction Advice in Orthodontic Health Communication: A Scenario-Based Comparison with Expert Consensus.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the accuracy, reliability, quality, and readability of responses generated by three large language model chatbots, ChatGPT4o, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Gemini 2.5 Flash, when answering common patient questions about the risks and benefits of orthognathic treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty frequently searched questions were identified via Google and entered into each chatbot. Responses were evaluated using validated scoring systems for accuracy, modified DISCERN, global quality scale (GQS), and Flesch Reading Ease. Intra- and inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa and intra-class correlation coefficients. Non-parametric tests were applied due to non-normal data distribution.
resultsCopilot achieved the highest reliability and quality scores, with significant differences observed in modified DISCERN (P < 0.001) and GQS (P = 0.046). Post hoc tests confirmed Copilot significantly outperformed ChatGPT. Accuracy scores did not differ significantly (P = 0.704). Readability varied significantly with Gemini and ChatGPT producing more accessible responses than Copilot. Intra- and inter-rater reliability scores were substantial to excellent for categorical measures and excellent for readability.
conclusionsCopilot provided the most reliable and high-quality responses, whilst ChatGPT and Gemini offered greater readability ease. Despite these strengths, variability in accuracy and reliability highlights the need for caution. Chatbots should be considered as supplementary tools, and patients should verify information with qualified professionals.
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.