Performance of four chatbots versus orthodontists in answering multiple-choice questions in orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics

IF 3.5 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Maged S. Alhammadi , Mohammed Sawady , Mona M Salah Fayed , Saleem Abdulrab , Nada O. El Zawahry , Mahmoud Ahmed Fekry , Amwaj Yahya Hassan Alamer , Esam Halboub
{"title":"Performance of four chatbots versus orthodontists in answering multiple-choice questions in orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics","authors":"Maged S. Alhammadi ,&nbsp;Mohammed Sawady ,&nbsp;Mona M Salah Fayed ,&nbsp;Saleem Abdulrab ,&nbsp;Nada O. El Zawahry ,&nbsp;Mahmoud Ahmed Fekry ,&nbsp;Amwaj Yahya Hassan Alamer ,&nbsp;Esam Halboub","doi":"10.1016/j.ejwf.2025.10.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The present study assessed the performance of four prominent chatbots (ChatGPT-4o, Grok 3, Gemini Advanced, and Claude 3.7 Sonnet) in answering orthodontics- and dentofacial orthopedics-related multiple-choice questions (MCQs).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>One hundred MCQs were prepared by three orthodontic consultants. These questions, each with four potential answers, covered basic and advanced orthodontic knowledge and clinical case scenarios. The chatbots’ answers were assessed twice at a one-week interval. Three orthodontists’ answers were reported once on a Google Form. Performance was measured as the percentage of correct answers, while consistency was measured as the McNemar test and Cohen's Kappa. A <em>P</em> ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The chatbots’ performance ranged from 72% to 84% and from 79% to 85% in the first and second rounds, respectively. Orthodontists’ performances ranged from 71% to 84%. The highest intrachatbot consistency was observed for Grok 3 (McNemar <em>P</em> = 1, and Kappa = 0.793), while the lowest was for Gemini Advanced and ChatGPT-4o (McNemar <em>P</em> = 0.001 and 0.167, respectively, and Kappa = 0.490 each). The interchatbot consistencies showed variability over time and were significantly different between Grok 3 and Claude 3.7 Sonnet (McNemar <em>P</em> = 0.109, and Kappa = 0.677) in the first round and between Gemini Advanced and Claude 3.7 Sonnet (McNemar <em>P</em> = 0.344, and Kappa = 0.647) in the second round. The consistencies among the orthodontists and between the orthodontists and chatbots were highly variable.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The performance of the evaluated chatbots in answering MCQs in orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics is still below expectations, although it was slightly better than that of orthodontists. Substantial inconsistencies existed among the chatbots, thus making them unsuitable for completely replacing existing educational methods and strongly suggesting that further improvement, continuous updating, and assessments are needed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","volume":"15 2","pages":"Pages 119-127"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212443825008136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The present study assessed the performance of four prominent chatbots (ChatGPT-4o, Grok 3, Gemini Advanced, and Claude 3.7 Sonnet) in answering orthodontics- and dentofacial orthopedics-related multiple-choice questions (MCQs).

Methods

One hundred MCQs were prepared by three orthodontic consultants. These questions, each with four potential answers, covered basic and advanced orthodontic knowledge and clinical case scenarios. The chatbots’ answers were assessed twice at a one-week interval. Three orthodontists’ answers were reported once on a Google Form. Performance was measured as the percentage of correct answers, while consistency was measured as the McNemar test and Cohen's Kappa. A P ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The chatbots’ performance ranged from 72% to 84% and from 79% to 85% in the first and second rounds, respectively. Orthodontists’ performances ranged from 71% to 84%. The highest intrachatbot consistency was observed for Grok 3 (McNemar P = 1, and Kappa = 0.793), while the lowest was for Gemini Advanced and ChatGPT-4o (McNemar P = 0.001 and 0.167, respectively, and Kappa = 0.490 each). The interchatbot consistencies showed variability over time and were significantly different between Grok 3 and Claude 3.7 Sonnet (McNemar P = 0.109, and Kappa = 0.677) in the first round and between Gemini Advanced and Claude 3.7 Sonnet (McNemar P = 0.344, and Kappa = 0.647) in the second round. The consistencies among the orthodontists and between the orthodontists and chatbots were highly variable.

Conclusions

The performance of the evaluated chatbots in answering MCQs in orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics is still below expectations, although it was slightly better than that of orthodontists. Substantial inconsistencies existed among the chatbots, thus making them unsuitable for completely replacing existing educational methods and strongly suggesting that further improvement, continuous updating, and assessments are needed.
四个聊天机器人与正畸医生在正畸和牙面矫形中回答多项选择题的表现。
背景:本研究评估了四个著名的聊天机器人(chatgpt - 40、Grok 3、Gemini Advanced和Claude 3.7 Sonnet)在回答正畸和牙面矫形相关的多项选择题(mcq)方面的表现。方法:由3名正畸专科医生制作100份mcq。这些问题,每个问题有四个可能的答案,涵盖了基本和高级正畸知识和临床案例。每隔一周对聊天机器人的回答进行两次评估。在谷歌表格上报告了三名正畸医生的答案。表现是用正确答案的百分比来衡量的,而一致性是用麦克尼马尔测试和科恩的卡帕测试来衡量的。A P≤0.05被认为是显著的。结果:在第一轮和第二轮中,聊天机器人的表现分别在72%到84%和79%到85%之间。正畸医生的表现从71%到84%不等。Grok 3的腔内一致性最高(McNemar P = 1, Kappa = 0.793),而Gemini Advanced和chatgpt - 40的腔内一致性最低(McNemar P = 0.001, 0.167, Kappa = 0.490)。聊天机器人之间的一致性随时间而变化,在第一轮中Grok 3和Claude 3.7十四行诗(McNemar P = 0.109, Kappa = 0.677)和第二轮中Gemini Advanced和Claude 3.7十四行诗(McNemar P = 0.344, Kappa = 0.647)之间存在显著差异。正畸医生之间以及正畸医生和聊天机器人之间的一致性是高度可变的。结论:被评估的聊天机器人在正畸和牙面矫形中回答mcq的表现仍低于预期,但略好于正畸医生。聊天机器人之间存在很大的不一致性,因此它们不适合完全取代现有的教育方法,强烈建议进一步改进,持续更新和评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists
Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.80%
发文量
34
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书