Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42238118›Full record

ArticleJADA foundational science2025

Generative AI: Opportunities, risks, and responsibilities for oral sciences.

Falk Schwendicke, Sharanbir K Sidhu, Jack L Ferracane, Antonin Tichy, Nicholas S Jakubovics

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in JADA foundational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Falk SchwendickeClinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, LMU Clinics, Munich, Germany.
Sharanbir K SidhuInstitute of Dentistry, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Jack L FerracaneDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation and Biosciences, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.
Antonin TichyClinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, LMU Clinics, Munich, Germany.
Nicholas S JakubovicsSchool of Dental Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the capability to generate new content-including text, code, imagery, video, and speech-based on human prompts and is entering dental and oral research. By retrieving, analyzing, summarizing, and contextualizing vast datasets, generative AI offers substantial potential to enhance scientific workflows. It can improve documentation, communication, and reproducibility while saving time and accelerating discovery. However, its integration into research brings significant ethical, societal, and scientific challenges. Concerns include embedded data biases, automation bias, overreliance, and error propagation, all requiring critical human oversight. Furthermore, generative AI raises complex issues around plagiarism, fraud, attribution, and reproducibility, compounded by the potential for AI "hallucinations" or fabricated content. Addressing these concerns demands transparency, robust verification processes, ethical compliance, and clear documentation distinguishing synthetic from real-world data. Several scientific and regulatory bodies have published guidelines to support responsible AI use. Recommendations relevant to scientists in dental, oral, and craniofacial research include transparent disclosure of AI tools and methods, thorough verification of AI outputs, ethical oversight, and active monitoring. Scientists are urged to work collaboratively with stakeholders to enforce these principles and engage the public in the evolving discourse. The risk of misuse, particularly through fraudulent AI-generated publications, is growing. Paper mills exploiting generative AI can produce fabricated or manipulated articles, which may mislead the scientific community and distort evidence bases. Coordinated action, involving journals, institutions, and ethics bodies, is essential to combat these threats. As generative AI continues to evolve, adaptive and harmonized guidelines wil be necessary to safeguard scientific integrity. Researchers, reviewers, and editors must play a proactive role in ensuring that AI serves to advance-not undermine-the quality and trustworthiness of dental and oral science.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligencelarge language modelspeer reviewreproducibility of resultsresponsible artificial intelligencescientific misconduct

Identifiers

PMID42238118
PMCPMC13229045

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.