ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Multidimensional evaluation of large language models on the AAP in-service examination: Assessing accuracy, calibration, and citation reliability.
Article in PLOS digital 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated rapid advancements in natural language understanding and generation, prompting their integration into biomedical research, clinical practice, and professional education. However, systematic evaluation of LLMs in specialty-specific domains such as dentistry and periodontology remains limited, particularly regarding multidimensional performance metrics. This study conducted a comprehensive assessment of commercially available LLMs - GPT-4.0, GPT-5.0, and Claude Sonnet 4.0 - on the American Academy of Periodontology In-Service Examination, focusing on response accuracy, self-assessed confidence calibration, citation validity, and hallucination prevalence. Models were evaluated on the 2024 AAP In-Service Examination (331 questions) using two formats: Full Test (all questions at once) and Individual Question (one at a time). Prompts were standardized; models selected answers, and GPT-5.0 and Claude Sonnet 4.0 also provided confidence ratings and citations. Citation validity was assessed using a human-in-the-loop protocol with expert review. Statistical analyses included chi-square, McNemar's, and logistic regression to assess accuracy, question fatigue, confidence calibration, and citation reliability. LLMs achieved high overall accuracy (78-87%), with the Individual Question format consistently yielding higher scores than Full Test, though differences were not statistically significant. Accuracy was highest in fact-dense domains (biochemistry, physiology, microbiology) and lowest in integrative domains (diagnosis, therapy). Significant question fatigue was observed in GPT-5.0 Full Test mode (OR = 0.997, p = 0.035) but not in Individual Question mode. Confidence scores predicted accuracy, with the strongest calibration in Individual Question mode. Citation analysis revealed frequent hallucinations, mostly critically erroneous, and citation validity was independent of answer accuracy. LLMs show promise as adjunctive tools for periodontal education, but their outputs, especially for complex reasoning and citations require rigorous human review to ensure accuracy and safety.
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.