ArticleScientific reports2026
A comparative analysis of large language models for providing oral cavity cancer information.
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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.