ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Evaluating Large Language Models for Burning Mouth Syndrome Diagnosis.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Dentistry in Clinical Practice: A Scoping Review of Current Capabilities and Future Directions.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Evaluating performance of large language models for atrial fibrillation management using different prompting strategies and languages.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Large language models have been proposed as diagnostic aids across various medical fields, including dentistry. Burning mouth syndrome, characterized by burning sensations in the oral cavity without identifiable cause, poses diagnostic challenges. This study explores the diagnostic accuracy of large language models in identifying burning mouth syndrome, hypothesizing potential limitations. Materials and Methods: Clinical vignettes of 100 synthesized burning mouth syndrome cases were evaluated using three large language models (ChatGPT-4o, Gemini Advanced 1.5 Pro, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet). Each vignette included patient demographics, symptoms, and medical history. Large language models were prompted to provide a primary diagnosis, differential diagnoses, and their reasoning. Accuracy was determined by comparing their responses with expert evaluations. Results: ChatGPT and Claude achieved an accuracy rate of 99%, while Gemini's accuracy was 89% (p < 0.001). Misdiagnoses included Persistent Idiopathic Facial Pain and combined diagnoses with inappropriate conditions. Differences were also observed in reasoning patterns and additional data requests across the large language models. Discussion: Despite high overall accuracy, the models exhibited variations in reasoning approaches and occasional errors, underscoring the importance of clinician oversight. Limitations include the synthesized nature of vignettes, potential over-reliance on exclusionary criteria, and challenges in differentiating overlapping disorders. Conclusion: Large language models demonstrate strong potential as supplementary diagnostic tools for burning mouth syndrome, especially in settings lacking specialist expertise. However, their reliability depends on thorough patient assessment and expert verification. Integrating large language models into routine diagnostics could enhance early detection and management, ultimately improving clinical decision-making for dentists and specialists alike.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.