ArticleBMC oral health2026
Do large language models differ in their pharmacology-related response quality for oral and maxillofacial surgery? a blinded expert benchmark study.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmacology represents the lowest-performing subcategory in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) evaluations of large language models (LLMs), yet no study has simultaneously compared the leading commercial LLMs across multiple pharmacological domains and question formats. This study evaluated ChatGPT 5.3, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Claude 4.6 Sonnet in OMFS pharmacology.
methodsThirty-six OMFS pharmacology questions spanning five clinical domains (antibiotic prophylaxis, analgesics, drug-drug interactions, anesthetic pharmacology, special populations) and three formats (open-ended, multiple-choice, true/false; n = 12 each) were submitted to each LLM using a standardized role-conditioning prompt. The 108 responses were independently and blindly evaluated by two oral and maxillofacial surgeons (one specialist and one resident) on three 5-point Likert criteria. Inter-rater reliability was quantified using ICC(2,1) and Cohen's κ_w. Inter-model differences were assessed using Friedman tests; format effects were assessed using Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc comparisons.
resultsInter-rater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.828; κ_w = 0.827; exact agreement 91.0%). A robust hierarchy emerged: Claude > Gemini > ChatGPT (χ²(2) = 47.91, p < 0.001, W = 0.665), with all pairwise comparisons significant. Gemini and Claude did not differ significantly in any format section, indicating clinical equivalence. ChatGPT exhibited a significant decline on open-ended, integrative-reasoning items (H(2) = 17.04, p < 0.001, ε² = 0.456), absent in Gemini and Claude. Significant positive correlations among the evaluation criteria within the ChatGPT data indicated convergence among the three scoring dimensions.
conclusionClaude 4.6 Sonnet and Gemini 3.1 Pro achieved near-maximal scores on this structured pharmacology benchmark, while ChatGPT 5.3 showed a significant decline in open-ended reasoning. Current LLMs should be regarded as adjunctive tools requiring expert verification for high-risk OMFS pharmacological decisions.
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.