ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2026
Accuracy, Self-Reported Confidence, and Overconfidence of Large Language Models in Endodontics: An Evaluation Using National Specialty Examination Questions.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, confidence, and overconfidence behavior of large language models (LLMs) in endodontics using questions derived from a national specialty entrance examination. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 123 text-based endodontic questions from the Turkish Dental Specialty Examination (2017-2026) were included after excluding annulled and image-based questions. Three LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini) were assessed. Each model answered all questions using a standardized prompt and provided a confidence score (0%-100%). Accuracy was recorded as correct/incorrect. Overconfidence was defined as incorrect responses with ≥90% confidence. Statistical analyses were performed using Cochran's Q test, Friedman test, and post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS Accuracy rates were 89.4% for ChatGPT, 76.4% for Claude, and 90.2% for Gemini, with significant differences among models (χ²(2)=21.00, P<0.001). Confidence scores differed significantly (c2(2)=213.40, P<0.001), with Gemini demonstrating highest confidence (99.51±1.49), followed by ChatGPT (90.88±9.19) and Claude (80.22±11.10). Overconfidence rates were 9.8% for Gemini and 5.7% for ChatGPT, while no overconfident responses were observed for Claude (χ²(2)=14.53, P=0.001). Despite similar accuracy between ChatGPT and Gemini, confidence patterns differed markedly, demonstrating that comparable accuracy does not necessarily reflect comparable reliability. CONCLUSIONS LLMs demonstrated high accuracy in answering text-based endodontic examination questions; however, significant differences were observed in confidence behavior and overconfidence patterns. The presence of high-confidence incorrect responses suggests that accuracy alone may be insufficient to fully evaluate model reliability. These findings highlight the importance of considering confidence-related behavior alongside accuracy when assessing LLM performance in examination-style endodontic tasks.
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.