Artificial Intelligence in Evaluating Undergraduate Dental Students: Benchmarking AI Platforms Against Student Performance.

IF 1.8
Alexia-Ecaterina Cârstea, Vlad-Gabriel Vasilescu, Ana-Maria Cristina Țâncu, Andreea-Cristiana Didilescu, Silviu-Mirel Pițuru, Marina Imre, Lucian-Toma Ciocan
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence in Evaluating Undergraduate Dental Students: Benchmarking AI Platforms Against Student Performance.","authors":"Alexia-Ecaterina Cârstea, Vlad-Gabriel Vasilescu, Ana-Maria Cristina Țâncu, Andreea-Cristiana Didilescu, Silviu-Mirel Pițuru, Marina Imre, Lucian-Toma Ciocan","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), has demonstrated significant potential in educational assessment across medical disciplines. This study explores whether such models can match or surpass the performance of undergraduate dental students in a rigorous academic examination. This cross-sectional comparative study aims to compare the performance of three AI systems: ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek, with that of undergraduate dental students during a standardized final examination in prosthodontic technology.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 49 second-year dental students completed a 45-item multiple-choice exam under standardized conditions. The same items were submitted to the AI models, and performance was analyzed using statistical methods including ANOVA, Cronbach Alpha and Tukey HSD to evaluate intergroup differences.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The integration of generative AI into medical and dental education needs critical reevaluation of assessment integrity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DeepSeek achieved perfect scores on high-difficulty questions, while ChatGPT showed adaptive improvement across attempts. Both significantly outperformed the student cohort, whereas Gemini demonstrated lower and consistent accuracy; statistical analysis confirmed significant differences between models (P=0.036, η²=0.891).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI models can equal or exceed student performance in domain-specific assessments, raising concerns about the integrity of unsupervised digital evaluations. Consequently, summative examinations should not be conducted online without strict proctoring or secure, verified environments to ensure academic validity and prevent unauthorized AI-assisted performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9742","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), has demonstrated significant potential in educational assessment across medical disciplines. This study explores whether such models can match or surpass the performance of undergraduate dental students in a rigorous academic examination. This cross-sectional comparative study aims to compare the performance of three AI systems: ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek, with that of undergraduate dental students during a standardized final examination in prosthodontic technology.

Materials and methods: A total of 49 second-year dental students completed a 45-item multiple-choice exam under standardized conditions. The same items were submitted to the AI models, and performance was analyzed using statistical methods including ANOVA, Cronbach Alpha and Tukey HSD to evaluate intergroup differences.

Discussion: The integration of generative AI into medical and dental education needs critical reevaluation of assessment integrity.

Results: DeepSeek achieved perfect scores on high-difficulty questions, while ChatGPT showed adaptive improvement across attempts. Both significantly outperformed the student cohort, whereas Gemini demonstrated lower and consistent accuracy; statistical analysis confirmed significant differences between models (P=0.036, η²=0.891).

Conclusions: AI models can equal or exceed student performance in domain-specific assessments, raising concerns about the integrity of unsupervised digital evaluations. Consequently, summative examinations should not be conducted online without strict proctoring or secure, verified environments to ensure academic validity and prevent unauthorized AI-assisted performance.

人工智能在牙科本科学生评估中的应用:将人工智能平台与学生表现进行对比。
人工智能(AI),特别是大型语言模型(llm),在跨医学学科的教育评估中显示出巨大的潜力。本研究探讨这些模型是否可以匹配或超越本科牙科学生在严格的学术考试中的表现。本横断面比较研究旨在比较ChatGPT、Gemini和DeepSeek三种人工智能系统与牙科本科学生在修复技术标准化期末考试中的表现。材料与方法:49名牙科二年级学生在标准化条件下完成45项选择题考试。将相同的项目提交给AI模型,并使用统计方法(包括ANOVA, Cronbach Alpha和Tukey HSD)对性能进行分析,以评估组间差异。讨论:将生成式人工智能整合到医学和牙科教育中,需要对评估的完整性进行批判性的重新评估。结果:DeepSeek在高难度问题上取得了完美的成绩,而ChatGPT在多次尝试中表现出适应性的提高。两者都明显优于学生组,而双子座则表现出较低且一致的准确性;统计分析证实模型间存在显著性差异(P=0.036, η²=0.891)。结论:人工智能模型在特定领域的评估中可以达到或超过学生的表现,这引起了人们对无监督数字评估完整性的担忧。因此,结论性考试不应在没有严格监考或安全、经过验证的环境的情况下在线进行,以确保学术有效性并防止未经授权的人工智能辅助表现。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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