ArticleCureus2026
Reliability of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Answering Patient-Oriented Questions About Endodontic Apical Lesions.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the reliability and clinical appropriateness of responses generated by publicly accessible AI-based chatbot platforms (ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA); Grok (xAI, Palo Alto, CA, USA); and DeepSeek (High-Flyer, Hangzhou, ZJ, CHN)) when addressing patient-oriented questions related to endodontic apical lesions.
methodsA total of 15 standardized, non-technical questions were developed to simulate typical patient inquiries. The questions covered four domains: identification of apical lesions, differentiation between odontogenic and non-odontogenic causes, management and recommended next steps, and potential risks and follow-up considerations. Each question was independently submitted once to ChatGPT, Grok, and DeepSeek. Two expert evaluators (a board-certified endodontist and a board-certified oral and maxillofacial pathologist) assessed the responses using a five-point Likert scale based on reliability, clarity, and clinical appropriateness for patient education. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize response ratings, and differences among platforms were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test.
resultsAll three AI platforms demonstrated high levels of expert agreement, with a Cohen's kappa value of 0.85 indicating almost perfect inter-rater reliability. ChatGPT achieved the highest proportion of strongly agreeable responses, followed by Grok and DeepSeek. No statistically significant differences were observed among the platforms in agreement distributions (p = 0.36). Based on expert evaluation, ChatGPT responses tended to provide more detailed clinical explanations, whereas Grok and DeepSeek responses were perceived to use simpler and more accessible language.
conclusionPublicly accessible AI chatbots can provide generally reliable and clinically appropriate responses to patient-oriented questions concerning endodontic apical lesions. ChatGPT demonstrated higher informational accuracy, whereas Grok and DeepSeek offered clearer patient-centered communication. These findings support the cautious integration of AI chatbots as adjunct tools for patient education, while emphasizing the continued necessity of professional clinical judgment.
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.