ArticleHead and neck pathology2026
Diagnostic Performance of Contemporary Large Language Models on Free-Text Histopathologic Descriptions in Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology.
Article in Head and neck pathology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo benchmark the diagnostic accuracy and inter-model agreement of contemporary large language models (LLMs) on text-only histopathologic narrative descriptions in oral and maxillofacial pathology (OMFP), and to assess how performance varies by diagnostic dependency and diagnostic category.
methodsIn this retrospective diagnostic accuracy study, 171 de-identified OMFP cases were screened, and 155 cases were included after predefined selection. Each case comprised an edited histopathologic narrative and a single expert-verified reference diagnosis. Three general-purpose LLMs (ChatGPT-5.0, Gemini-2.5-Pro, Claude-Opus-4.1) were queried once per case using an identical zero-shot prompt requesting a single definitive diagnosis. Primary outcome was case-level accuracy; paired comparisons used McNemar's test, and inter-model agreement was assessed with Cohen's κ. Performance was stratified by histology-sufficient (HS) versus correlation-dependent (CD) lesions and by OMFP diagnostic category.
resultsOverall accuracies were 83.2% (ChatGPT-5.0), 77.4% (Gemini-2.5-Pro), and 72.3% (Claude-Opus-4.1). ChatGPT-5.0 significantly outperformed Claude-Opus-4.1, whereas the differences between ChatGPT-5.0 and Gemini-2.5-Pro and between Gemini-2.5-Pro and Claude-Opus-4.1 were not statistically significant. Agreement was highest between Gemini-2.5-Pro and Claude-Opus-4.1 (κ = 0.73). All models showed higher accuracy for HS than CD lesions, with best performance in malignant, hematolymphoid, and immune-mediated categories.
conclusionContemporary LLMs can interpret OMFP histopathologic narratives with moderate overall diagnostic accuracy, particularly for lesions with distinctive microscopic features. Performance declined for CD entities, indicating persistent reliance on clinicoradiologic context. Although not suitable as stand-alone diagnosticians, these findings provide a controlled benchmark of text-based diagnostic performance and suggest potential supportive value in OMFP education and exploratory pathology informatics applications under expert supervision.
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.