ArticleOdontology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of large language models in the classification of superior labial frenulum attachments.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of multimodal large language models in classifying superior labial frenulum attachments from intraoral photographs using expert consensus as the reference standard. Five experts (two periodontists and three orthodontists) established the consensus standard by classifying frenulum attachments in 117 intraoral images as mucosal, gingival, papillary, and papilla penetrating. The same photographs were then presented to three multimodal large language models (ChatGPT 4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Microsoft Copilot GPT-4), and their diagnostic performance was evaluated using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score. Reliability was assessed using Fleiss' and Cohen's Kappa, and diagnostic performances were compared using Cochran's Q test. Human raters demonstrated almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.838, p < 0.001), whereas large language models showed poor inter-model agreement (κ = - 0.124, p < 0.001). ChatGPT achieved slight significant agreement with the consensus (κ = 0.114, p = 0.019), although its clinical relevance was negligible. Gemini (κ = 0.099) and Copilot (κ = 0.027) showed no significant agreement (p > 0.05). Copilot yielded the highest overall accuracy (46.2%), followed by Gemini (44.5%) and ChatGPT (35.0%). The performance of the large language models varied across frenulum types. Current multimodal large language models demonstrate inconsistent and clinically insufficient accuracy in the classification of superior labial frenulum attachments from photographs. Domain-specific training is essential before large language models can be considered reliable diagnostic tools in dentistry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41369714What 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.