A Review of ChatGPT as a Reliable Source of Scientific Information Regarding Endodontic Local Anesthesia.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of endodontics Pub Date : 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2025.02.002
Al Reader, Melissa Drum
{"title":"A Review of ChatGPT as a Reliable Source of Scientific Information Regarding Endodontic Local Anesthesia.","authors":"Al Reader, Melissa Drum","doi":"10.1016/j.joen.2025.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, developed by OpenAI, that uses Deep Learning (DL) technology for information processing. The chatbot uses natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) algorithms to respond to users' questions. The purpose of this study was to review ChatGPT responses to determine if they were a reliable source of scientific information regarding local anesthesia for endodontics.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Sixteen representative questions pertaining to local anesthesia for endodontics were selected. ChatGPT was asked to answer the 16 questions and provide supporting references. Each provided ChatGPT reference was evaluated for accuracy using NLM NIH.GOV(PubMed), Google Scholar, journal citations, and author citations. Peer-reviewed, evidence-based literature citations related to the initial questions were collected by the authors. The two authors independently compared the answers of the ChatGPT to the peer-reviewed, evidence-based literature using a 5-answer Likert-type scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT was reliable 50% of the time when compared to the peer-reviewed, evidence-based literature. That is, ChatGPT had the same literature-based response as our peer-reviewed, evidence-based literature in 16 of the 32 questions. Of the 51 total references for Chatbot, 59% (30 of 51) had the wrong reference; 12% (6 of 51) of the references couldn't be retrieved; and 18% (9 of 51) of the references were hallucinations (made up references).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI needs further training in or field to be trusted for accurate information in the filed of endodontic anesthesia. ChatGPT should continue to improve to provide reliable information for providers and patients alike.</p>","PeriodicalId":15703,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endodontics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2025.02.002","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, developed by OpenAI, that uses Deep Learning (DL) technology for information processing. The chatbot uses natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) algorithms to respond to users' questions. The purpose of this study was to review ChatGPT responses to determine if they were a reliable source of scientific information regarding local anesthesia for endodontics.

Materials and methods: Sixteen representative questions pertaining to local anesthesia for endodontics were selected. ChatGPT was asked to answer the 16 questions and provide supporting references. Each provided ChatGPT reference was evaluated for accuracy using NLM NIH.GOV(PubMed), Google Scholar, journal citations, and author citations. Peer-reviewed, evidence-based literature citations related to the initial questions were collected by the authors. The two authors independently compared the answers of the ChatGPT to the peer-reviewed, evidence-based literature using a 5-answer Likert-type scale.

Results: ChatGPT was reliable 50% of the time when compared to the peer-reviewed, evidence-based literature. That is, ChatGPT had the same literature-based response as our peer-reviewed, evidence-based literature in 16 of the 32 questions. Of the 51 total references for Chatbot, 59% (30 of 51) had the wrong reference; 12% (6 of 51) of the references couldn't be retrieved; and 18% (9 of 51) of the references were hallucinations (made up references).

Conclusions: AI needs further training in or field to be trusted for accurate information in the filed of endodontic anesthesia. ChatGPT should continue to improve to provide reliable information for providers and patients alike.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of endodontics
Journal of endodontics 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
224
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Endodontics, the official journal of the American Association of Endodontists, publishes scientific articles, case reports and comparison studies evaluating materials and methods of pulp conservation and endodontic treatment. Endodontists and general dentists can learn about new concepts in root canal treatment and the latest advances in techniques and instrumentation in the one journal that helps them keep pace with rapid changes in this field.
期刊最新文献
Correlation Between Fibrous Area Ratio and Numbers of Cycles to Fracture Resistances of Nickel-Titanium Files. Nine-Year Follow-Up of Autotransplantation in the Maxillary Anterior Region: Replacing a Fused Incisor with a Supernumerary Tooth. A Review of ChatGPT as a Reliable Source of Scientific Information Regarding Endodontic Local Anesthesia. Impact of wine polyphenols on the inflammatory profile of induced apical periodontitis in rats. Five-year Outcomes of Root Canal Treatment Comparing Sealer-based Obturation with Calcium Silicate-based Sealer to Continuous Wave of Condensation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1