ArticleBMC oral health2026
Accuracy of large language models in the Turkish dental specialization examination (DUS): a multidimensional evaluation across disciplines and question formats.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs) on the clinical sciences component of the Turkish Dental Specialization Examination (DUS) by comparing their accuracy across disciplines, examination years, and question types.
methodsThe source dataset contained 1,040 scheduled clinical-science questions from the official DUS examinations (2012/1-2021). Thirteen officially cancelled items were excluded, leaving 1,027 evaluable questions across eight disciplines (871 MCQs, 119 CMCQs, and 37 IBMCQs). The same questions were submitted once to seven consumer AI interfaces. Overall and exploratory subgroup comparisons were performed using Cochran's Q test. Only the overall comparison was followed by 21 exact pairwise McNemar tests with Holm adjustment. Wilson 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall accuracy.
resultsOverall accuracy differed among the seven interfaces (Cochran's Q = 669.10; p < 0.001). Gemini 2.5 Pro achieved the highest accuracy (92.9%; 954/1,027), whereas Qwen3-Max achieved the lowest (59.5%; 611/1,027). Exploratory Cochran's Q tests indicated omnibus differences among interfaces within every dental discipline (all p < 0.001) and within MCQ (Q = 669.91; p < 0.001), CMCQ (Q = 59.29; p < 0.001), and IBMCQ groups (Q = 14.68; p = 0.023). The IBMCQ result should be interpreted cautiously because only 37 items were available.
conclusionsUnder standardized, single-attempt Turkish DUS testing conditions, the evaluated consumer AI interfaces showed materially different accuracy across the full dataset and exploratory discipline- and format-based subgroups. These findings characterize examination performance only and require confirmation with novel, unpublished, clinically contextualized, and independently assessed questions before broader educational or clinical utility can be inferred.
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.