ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluating large language models for orthodontic consultation in patients with periodontitis: a study of reliability, quality, and readability.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of five publicly accessible large language models (LLMs)-based chatbots, ChatGPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, Claude-Sonnet-4, Gemini-2.0 Flash, and Grok-3, in addressing inquiries from patients with periodontitis seeking orthodontic treatment. The primary objective was to assess the reliability, quality, and readability of the LLM-generated responses.
methodsThirty frequently asked questions regarding orthodontic treatment for patients with periodontitis were sourced from social media platforms and health-related websites and compiled for this study. Each LLM response was evaluated for reliability using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool, quality using the Global Quality Score (GQS), and readability using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) scores. Differences among models were analysed using linear mixed-effects models, with model treated as a fixed effect and question as a random effect. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons of estimated marginal means were performed with Bonferroni's adjustment. Significance was set at P < 0.05.
resultsAmong the evaluated LLMs, significant performance differences were observed across all metrics (P < 0.001). Grok-3 provided the highest reliability and quality (mDISCERN: 4.20 ± 0.48; GQS: 4.38 ± 0.61), whereas Claude-Sonnet-4 scored the lowest (mDISCERN: 3.54 ± 0.50; GQS: 3.63 ± 0.59). DeepSeek-V3 was rated as most readable (FRE: 33.61 ± 6.11; FKGL: 10.10 ± 1.14), whereas Claude-Sonnet-4 was the least readable (FRE: 4.73 ± 4.14; FKGL: 13.72 ± 1.22). All models produced responses with university-level readability.
conclusionsGrok-3 demonstrates higher reliability and quality, whereas DeepSeek-V3 generates more readable responses. All models exceed recommended readability thresholds for patient education. However, given the risks of misinformation and readability limitations, these should be considered supplementary educational resources, rather than primary sources of medical information.
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.