ArticleBMC oral health2026
Language-dependent performance variation in large language models for dental trauma management: a comparative evaluation of ChatGPT-5.2, Gemini 3.0, and Claude 4.5 Sonnet.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated for medical question answering and clinical information tasks, yet the impact of query language on their performance in specialized domains such as dental traumatology remains insufficiently studied. The primary objective was to evaluate whether query language (English vs. Turkish) affects LLM performance in a controlled scenario-based assessment of dental trauma management. Secondary objectives were to compare overall performance across three LLMs and to examine whether language effects are uniform across models or model-specific.
methodsTwenty-seven clinical scenarios covering 13 dental trauma categories were presented to ChatGPT 5.2, Gemini 3.0, and Claude 4.5 Sonnet in both English and Turkish, generating 162 responses. Two blinded endodontists independently evaluated responses using a standardized rubric assessing accuracy (40%), completeness (35%), and safety (25%) against IADT 2020 Guidelines. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Language effects were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests; model comparisons employed Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction.
resultsInter-rater reliability ranged from moderate to good across evaluation dimensions (ICC: 0.738-0.836). ChatGPT showed the strongest language effect with 9.14% higher performance in English (p < 0.001, r = 0.874). Gemini showed moderate English advantage (5.69%, p = 0.003, r = 0.572). Claude exhibited language independence with virtually identical performance in both languages (-0.02%, p = 0.220). In English, significant model differences emerged (H = 22.31, p < 0.001); however, model performance converged in Turkish (H = 2.89, p = 0.236).
conclusionsThis exploratory scenario-based study demonstrates model-specific, rather than universal, language effects on LLM performance in dental trauma management. ChatGPT 5.2 achieved the highest performance in English but exhibited the most pronounced Turkish-language degradation, including substantial safety score decline. Gemini 3.0 showed an intermediate pattern with moderate English advantage. Claude 4.5 Sonnet demonstrated language-independent performance across all evaluated dimensions. These findings are based on a standardized scenario-based assessment and should not be extrapolated to real clinical environments or patient care settings.
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.