ArticleOdontology2026
Evaluation of large language models in root resorption scenarios: an ESE-aligned comparative performance assessment.
Article in Odontology, 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
This study aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy, appropriateness of treatment planning, and source citation performance of five large language models ChatGPT-4o (Free), ChatGPT-5.1 Plus, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and DeepSeek-R1 in root resorption scenarios. In December 2025, twelve clinical scenarios were created based on the classification of the European Society of Endodontology and each scenario was presented to all chatbots over four consecutive days. All responses were evaluated using a blinded assessment protocol and a binary scoring system. A total of 720 observations (12 cases × 4 repetitions × 3 criteria per model) were analyzed. The collected data were analyzed using chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Cochran Q tests. In terms of diagnostic accuracy, Microsoft Copilot (79.2%), ChatGPT-5.1 (77.1%), and ChatGPT-4o (Free) (75%) showed the highest performance. Google Gemini (68.8%) demonstrated a moderate level of accuracy, while DeepSeek (39.6%) showed markedly low performance. All models exhibited high accuracy in treatment plan recommendations, and no statistically significant differences were detected. Regarding citation accuracy, Copilot ranked first with 100% accuracy. Although large language models present potential as supportive decision-making tools in the evaluation of root resorption, diagnostic inconsistencies, limitations in source accuracy, and variability in responses restrict their independent use in clinical applications. Therefore, the outputs generated by these models should be interpreted cautiously within clinical decision-making processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42573919What 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.