ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
AI text detection in dentistry: a comparative analysis across generative models.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobust screening for AI-generated scientific text is increasingly required by journals, yet detector performance on full-length manuscripts remains unclear. Six widely used detectors were benchmarked on dentistry manuscripts, and performance was compared across state-of-the-art generators.
methodsA total of 120 manuscripts was assembled in four groups (GPT-4.5, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R2, and human-written; n = 30 each). Aidetector, GPTZero, Copyleaks, Originality.AI, Turnitin, and DetectingAI produced 0-100% scores. Discrimination was assessed with ROC/AUC and DeLong tests with Bonferroni correction. A pre-specified 60% threshold yielded document-level classifications. Inter-detector agreement was quantified with Cohen's κ.
resultsFour detectors showed high discrimination; pairwise AUC differences among these were not significant after Bonferroni correction and each outperformed Turnitin and DetectingAI. Using the 60% cut-off, sensitivities and specificities were high, with no false positives observed among the 30 human texts included in this sample. Agreement was almost perfect among the high performers, slight for Turnitin, and none for DetectingAI. Across tools, DeepSeek-R2 texts were the easiest to detect.
conclusionsOn full dentistry manuscripts, four detectors showed high discrimination, whereas Turnitin showed moderate performance and DetectingAI was ineffective. A percentage-based 60% decision threshold provided reproducible, manuscript-level calls. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results may help dental editors and reviewers compare detectors for preliminary screening of AI-generated text under controlled conditions.
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.