Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42125889›Full record

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.

Robert Samuel David Smyth, Aliki Tsichlaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Robert Samuel David SmythOrthodontic Unit, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, Rockefeller Building, 21 University Street, London WC1E 6DE, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5763-1298
Aliki TsichlakiOrthodontic Unit, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, Rockefeller Building, 21 University Street, London WC1E 6DE, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Large Language ModelsOrthognathic Surgical ProceduresComprehensionCross-Sectional StudiesGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentSoftwareartificial intelligencechatbotslarge language modelsorthognathic treatment

Identifiers

PMID42125889
PMCPMC13168883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.