Large Language Models for Endodontic Symptom Assessment and Treatment Planning Using Image-Free Clinical Records: Comparative Evaluation Study.

Background: Accurate assessment of pulpal status is essential for achieving successful endodontic outcomes. However, direct evaluation remains inherently challenging because the pulp is surrounded by calcified tissue, necessitating reliance on clinical and radiographic examinations for diagnostic and prognostic decision-making. These procedures demand substantial clinical expertise and time, and less-experienced clinicians often face challenges that may lead to errors in diagnosis and treatment planning. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) offer promising opportunities to enhance clinical reasoning by facilitating the integration of evidence and supporting methodical diagnostic decision-making. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical applicability of LLMs by comparing their text-based clinical screening performance and the clinical validity of their treatment plan responses with those of human evaluators. Methods: Between January 2011 and December 2022, 100 clinical cases involving primary endodontic disease were randomly selected from the clinical records of outpatients who visited the Department of Conservative Dentistry or Advanced General Dentistry (AGD) at Yonsei University Dental Hospital. Four prompt types, combining 2 variables (language and role), were used as input for 4 LLMs. Both LLMs and human evaluators (AGD specialists, AGD residents, endodontic residents, and senior dental students) assessed the cases using text-based clinical records. Radiographic images were not directly provided. Screening performance was evaluated using a 0-to-2-point concordance scale, and treatment plan validity and relevance were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Among the 4 LLMs evaluated, ChatGPT achieved the highest mean concordance score on Korean-doctor prompts (mean 0.98, SD 0.82). However, this score did not reach the partially correct criterion of 1 on the 0 to 2-point scale. Clova X recorded the lowest mean score on English-patient prompts (mean 0.23, SD 0.63). Across both diagnostic categories, AGD specialists demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy (pulpal: 0.70; periapical: 0.65), with higher sensitivity but lower specificity than those exhibited by the other groups. ChatGPT also showed favorable performance among the LLMs, with accuracies of 0.65 (95% CI 0.55-0.74) for pulpal disease and 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.69) for periapical disease, which were comparable to those of AGD and endodontic residents. Conclusions: Under image-free clinical record review conditions, ChatGPT 4.0 showed relatively higher and more consistent performance in symptom screening and treatment planning compared to the other LLMs evaluated. However, its highest mean score of 0.98 (SD 0.82) did not reach the partially correct criterion of 1 on the 0 to 2-point scale. Hallucinations generated by LLMs and experience-dependent interpretation biases among human evaluators remain key challenges that require attention. Therefore, continuous clinical supervision and comprehensive user training are necessary for the safe and effective clinical application.