ArticleOdontology2026
Limitations of off-the-shelf multimodal foundation models in secondary caries detection on interproximal radiographs.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate whether off-the-shelf general-purpose multimodal foundation models can achieve clinically meaningful diagnostic performance in detecting secondary caries on interproximal radiographs without domain-specific training, using GPT-5o (OpenAI) and Gemini 2.5 Flash (Google Inc.) as representative publicly accessible models. A comparative exploratory study used 50 interproximal radiographs of posterior teeth obtained from a dental imaging center, yielding 208 teeth. Each tooth was evaluated twice by each model in independent sessions, totaling 416 observations per model. A specialist in restorative dentistry established the reference standard. Models were assessed in a zero-shot setting using a standardized prompt. Diagnostic performance was evaluated at the tooth level using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1-score, and Cohen's kappa, with 95% confidence intervals estimated via bootstrap resampling (1000 iterations). Both models demonstrated limited diagnostic performance. GPT-5o showed moderate sensitivity (64.7%) but low specificity (32.3%), resulting in an accuracy of 41.3% and negligible agreement with the reference standard (κ = - 0.021). Gemini 2.5 Flash exhibited higher sensitivity (82.8%) but extremely low specificity (13.0%), with lower accuracy (32.5%) and similarly negligible agreement (κ = - 0.026). Both models showed a strong tendency toward false-positive classifications. Tooth localization performance was poor, with low identification rates in both models. GPT-5o and Gemini 2.5 Flash, when used in their off-the-shelf configurations, demonstrated inadequate diagnostic performance for detecting secondary caries on interproximal radiographs. Their limited accuracy, low specificity, and poor localization ability do not support their direct use for secondary caries detection on interproximal radiographs without domain-specific training and rigorous independent validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42671523What 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.