ArticleBMC oral health2026
Assessing diagnostic performance of multimodal LLMs and a custom convolutional neural network in tooth-level caries detection and localization.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial Intelligence is reshaping dental diagnostics through automated interpretation of images. While Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) demonstrate high accuracy via domain-specific training, multimodal Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT-4o and Gemini 2.5 Flash have recently acquired visual-reasoning capabilities without task-specific fine-tuning.
objectiveThis study compared the diagnostic performance of these LLMs with a custom CNN for detecting and localizing dental caries on intraoral images.
methodsThis cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study used 22 occlusal-view intraoral images. ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and a YOLOv5s-based CNN analyzed each image for caries detection and localization. Quantitative evaluation assessed decay detection using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), and F1 score. Inter-model differences were analyzed using McNemar's test. Additionally, a descriptive qualitative evaluation was performed by specialist dentists, who rated each model's output for realism, diagnostic accuracy, bounding-box precision, and absence of unnecessary annotations using a 3-point Likert scale.
resultsThe CNN achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy (97.2%), sensitivity (86.7%), and F-1 score (88.0%). Gemini 2.5 Flash outperformed ChatGPT-4o in sensitivity (76.4 vs. 66.2%) and F-1 score (74.3 vs. 68.7%). Overall, CNN's performance was significantly superior (p < 0.001), whereas no difference was found between the two LLMs (p = 0.541). Qualitatively, CNN scored best for realism (90.9%), decay accuracy (79.5%), and bounding-box precision (93.1%).
conclusionCNNs provide superior accuracy for caries localization compared with multimodal LLMs. However, LLMs demonstrate potential for generating clinically interpretable diagnostic summaries. Hybrid systems integrating CNN-based detection with LLM-driven reasoning may enhance decision-making and improve efficiency in dental diagnostic workflows.
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.