Comprehensiveness of Large Language Models in Patient Queries on Gingival and Endodontic Health

Aim

Given the increasing interest in using large language models (LLMs) for self-diagnosis, this study aimed to evaluate the comprehensiveness of two prominent LLMs, ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4, in addressing common queries related to gingival and endodontic health across different language contexts and query types.

Methods

We assembled a set of 33 common real-life questions related to gingival and endodontic healthcare, including 17 common-sense questions and 16 expert questions. Each question was presented to the LLMs in both English and Chinese. Three specialists were invited to evaluate the comprehensiveness of the responses on a five-point Likert scale, where a higher score indicated greater quality responses.

Results

LLMs performed significantly better in English, with an average score of 4.53, compared to 3.95 in Chinese (Mann–Whitney U test, P < .05). Responses to common sense questions received higher scores than those to expert questions, with averages of 4.46 and 4.02 (Mann–Whitney U test, P < .05). Among the LLMs, ChatGPT-4 consistently outperformed ChatGPT-3.5, achieving average scores of 4.45 and 4.03 (Mann–Whitney U test, P < .05).

Conclusions

ChatGPT-4 provides more comprehensive responses than ChatGPT-3.5 for queries related to gingival and endodontic health. Both LLMs perform better in English and on common sense questions. However, the performance discrepancies across different language contexts and the presence of inaccurate responses suggest that further evaluation and understanding of their limitations are crucial to avoid potential misunderstandings.

Clinical Relevance

This study revealed the performance differences of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 in handling gingival and endodontic health issues across different language contexts, providing insights into the comprehensiveness and limitations of LLMs in addressing common oral healthcare queries.