ArticleBMC oral health2026
Diagnostic performance of a multimodal large language model in assessing the index of complexity, outcome, and need: comparison with orthodontist evaluation.
Article in BMC oral 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the performance of a multimodal large language model (MLLM), Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer-5.5 (ChatGPT-5.5), in determining orthodontic treatment need based on the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON) using intraoral photographs and digital model images. Agreement at the ICON component level and consistency with the total ICON score were also examined.
methodsA total of 104 patients contributed 520 intraoral photographs and 520 rendered digital model images. Two orthodontists independently scored all ICON components (aesthetics, crowding/spacing, crossbite, vertical relationship, and buccal relationship), and cases with complete interrater agreement were used as the reference standard. A standardized ICON prompt for ChatGPT-5.5 was optimized using the Iterative Prompt Calibration (IPC) method. Model outputs were assessed using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, exact agreement rates, Cohen's kappa, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Confusion matrices and ROC curves were generated for the binary treatment-need decision.
resultsThe ChatGPT-5.5 achieved overall accuracies of 74.0% for intraoral photographs and 72.1% for model images. Recall was high for treatment-required cases (0.871 and 1.00, respectively) but markedly lower for cases not requiring treatment (0.471 and 0.147). Component-level agreement varied considerably, with significant differences between photographs and models for crowding/spacing and vertical relationships. The anteroposterior relationship showed higher accuracy in model evaluations. ICC values for the total ICON score were 0.463 for photographs (moderate reliability) and 0.154 for models (poor reliability). AUC values were 0.671 and 0.574, indicating limited discriminative performance.
conclusionsAlthough ChatGPT-5.5, evaluated as a MLLM, demonstrated moderate accuracy in the binary classification of orthodontic treatment need, its inconsistent performance across ICON components and tendency to overestimate treatment need limit its current clinical reliability. Therefore, clinical decision-making should remain guided by expert judgment.
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.