ArticleCureus2026
Accuracy of General-Use Multimodal AI Platforms for Pell and Gregory Classification of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars.
Article in Cureus, 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
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of two general-use artificial intelligence models, ChatGPT and Grok, in classifying impacted mandibular third molars using the Pell and Gregory system on panoramic radiographs, compared with a resident consensus reference standard. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred panoramic radiographic images of impacted mandibular third molars were independently classified by two blinded resident reviewers using the Pell and Gregory classification system. Resident consensus was defined as exact agreement between both reviewers; the 94 concordant classifications were confirmed by a board-certified oral and maxillofacial radiologist (the second author), blinded to the AI outputs, and served as the reference standard. Cases without consensus were excluded from the AI accuracy analysis. Each image was then submitted individually to ChatGPT-5.2 and Grok 4.1 through their paid-tier chat interfaces, with each case initiated as a new conversation session. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using percent agreement and Cohen's kappa. AI accuracy was calculated as the proportion of correct classifications among consensus cases, and the two models were compared using McNemar's test with continuity correction.
resultsThe two resident reviewers reached consensus on 94 of 100 cases, with an observed agreement of 94.0% and a Cohen's kappa of 0.925 (95% CI: 0.867-0.983). ChatGPT correctly classified 19 of 94 consensus cases (20.2%; 95% CI: 12.1-28.3%), while Grok correctly classified 17 of 94 cases (18.1%; 95% CI: 10.3-25.9%). Both models performed only marginally above the 11.1% accuracy expected from random chance across nine classification categories. McNemar's test showed no statistically significant difference between the two models (χ²(1) = 0.045, p = 0.832).
conclusionsBoth ChatGPT and Grok demonstrated poor accuracy in the Pell and Gregory classification of impacted mandibular third molars when compared with resident consensus. These findings suggest that currently available general-use AI models are not reliable for the independent radiographic classification of impacted mandibular third molars and should not replace expert clinical judgment for this task.
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.