ArticlePloS one2026
A comparative analysis of the performance of leading large language models on the endodontics section of the dentistry specialization exam in Türkiye.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of eight contemporary LLMs on the endodontics section of the DUS, assessing their accuracy in both theoretical knowledge and simulated clinical scenarios from historical exam data.
methodsThe performance of eight different large language models (Claude 4, DeepSeek V3, Gemini 2.5 Pro, ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5, Grok 4, LLaMA 4, and Perplexity) was evaluated using 127 multiple-choice endodontics questions from the Specialization Exam in Dentistry (DUS) administered by the Student Selection and Placement Center (ÖSYM) between 2012 and 2021. The models' responses were compared against the official answer keys. Statistical analyses were performed using Pearson's chi-square and McNemar tests, with a significance level of α = 0.05.
resultsSignificant differences existed among LLMs in overall accuracy (p < 0.001). Gemini 2.5 Pro achieved the highest accuracy (90.6%), outperforming ChatGPT-4o (61.4%) and LLaMA 4 (71.7%). In Clinical Practice Questions (CPQ), Gemini 2.5 Pro (93.9%) surpassed ChatGPT-4o (57.6%; p = 0.019). For General Knowledge and Concept Questions (GKCQ), Gemini 2.5 Pro (89.4%), Grok 4 (85.1%), and DeepSeek V3 (84.0%) exceeded ChatGPT-4o (62.8%; p < 0.001). No significant intra-model differences emerged between CPQ and GKCQ performance (p > 0.05).
conclusionContemporary LLMs demonstrate substantial competence in endodontic knowledge, with Gemini 2.5 Pro excelling in both theoretical and clinical queries. However, significant performance variability across models (61.4%-90.6%) and the complexity of retrieving and resolving clinical exam queries necessitate domain-specific optimization and expert oversight for reliable integration into dental education and practice.
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.