Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42573919›Full record

ArticleOdontology2026

Evaluation of large language models in root resorption scenarios: an ESE-aligned comparative performance assessment.

Öznur Küçük Keleş, Zeynep Betül Arslan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Öznur Küçük KeleşDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, 06220, Ankara, Turkey. oznurkucukkeles@aybu.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7303-0601
Zeynep Betül ArslanDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, 06220, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8826-1958

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ChatbotsClinical decision supportDiagnostic accuracyLarge language modelsRoot resorption

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.