ArticleBMC oral health2026
A comparative evaluation of two large language models in pediatric dentistry.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs) have been developed rapidly. This study evaluated the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and performance of two LLMs in answering questions about pediatric dentistry.
methodsChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini-1.5pro were tested on 45 questions about pediatric dentistry. These questions are classified as multiple-choice questions MCQ), True/false questions, and open-ended questions. They were directed to LLMs. Responses were recorded and scored by four pediatric dentists. Statistical analyses, including ICC analysis, were performed to determine the agreement and accuracy of the responses. The significance level was set as p < 0.050.
resultsGemini was statistically significantly more accurate in 71.1% of the questions (p = 0.001). This difference was due to the T/F section (p = 0.001). ChatGPT gave more correct answers to the MCQ. There was no significant difference between the responses of the Gemini model to different types of questions prepared in the field of pediatric dentistry and the median scores (p = 0.062).
conclusionsThe performance of LLMs in pediatric dentistry was satisfactory. However, further training using specific, relevant data derived from reliable sources is required. Additionally, the validity of these chatbots’ responses must be meticulously verified. LLMs provide clinical support to the pediatric dentist by providing the right information quickly, so they can help him/her to perform the most appropriate treatment in the shortest possible time and thus ensure child-patient cooperation.
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.