Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42177255›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

A comparative analysis of large language models for providing oral cavity cancer information.

Eda İzgi, Turan Canmurat İzgi, Ceren Mordağ Çiçek

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eda İzgiDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Gülsüm Güral Faculty of Dentistry, Kütahya Health Science University, Inköy District, Eskisehir Highway Blvd. No: 65, Center, Kütahya, Turkey. eda.izgi@ksbu.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2879-7798
Turan Canmurat İzgiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Kütahya Health Sciences University, Kütahya, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1852-856X
Ceren Mordağ ÇiçekDepartment of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9140-1453

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the medical information delivery capacity and content quality of current large language models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT (GPT-5.2), Gemini (3.1), and DeepSeek (V4), regarding oral cavity cancer (OCC) based on expert opinions. 20 open-ended questions addressing the risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment of OCC were directed to the three models. The responses were evaluated using a blinded method by 31 expert physicians from Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Otorhinolaryngology (ENT), and Medical Oncology. The Modified Global Quality Scale (1-5 points) was utilised for evaluation. Statistical analyses were performed using Kruskal-Wallis, ANOVA, and Bonferroni post-hoc tests, while Fleiss' Kappa coefficient determined inter-expert consistency. The general performance scores of the models were high (3.57-4.15). In the overall assessment, Gemini received statistically significantly higher scores than the DeepSeek model (p = 0.036). Significant performance differences were identified across 15 of 20 questions (p < 0.05); ChatGPT excelled on clinical and treatment-oriented questions, while Gemini stood out on comprehensive informational items. While no statistically significant difference was found among the specialist groups for the overall evaluation and 19 out of 20 questions (p > 0.05), a significant difference was observed solely for Q6 (p = 0.042). Although LLMs have the potential to generate high-quality information about OCC, their performance varies by content type and model architecture. While Gemini demonstrated more consistent performance overall, expert supervision remains essential before these tools can be used as reliable sources of clinical information. Clinicians must be aware of the specific strengths and limitations of different LLMs in OCC to better guide patients who increasingly use such tools for medical information.

Indexed as

Large Language ModelsMouth NeoplasmsGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansArtificial intelligenceHealth literacyLarge language modelsMouth neoplasmsQuality of health care

Identifiers

PMID42177255
PMCPMC13421682

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.