+ HEALTH Aims Intramuscular fat (IMF) is increasingly recognized as a marker of ectopic adiposity and adverse cardiome…+ HEALTH Periapical lesions are challenging to detect on intraoral radiographs because of anatomical superimposition a…± HEALTH Ultrasound imaging is an indispensable diagnostic tool, yet its profound reliance on operator expertise inher…+ HEALTH Objectives We adapted the individualized polysocial risk score (iPsRS), a machine learning model originally d…± HEALTH Melioidosis is a life-threatening infectious disease caused by Burkholderia pseudomallei ( Bp ). Rapid diagno…+ HEALTH Classification is a core machine learning task, and ensemble voting methods are widely used to improve predic…+ CLIMATE Microplastic (MP) pollution poses escalating environmental risks, demanding efficient and reproducible tools…± HEALTH Medicinal chemistry sits at the center of modern drug discovery, yet translating molecular designs into appro…
TruaceTracing the truth around AIWednesday, August 26, 2026
Subscribe
TRV-2026-0852Version 1 · Certified

Written 2026-08-23 06:03:04 UTC · current record

Reason for this version

Certified into the record

Canonical text (the exact bytes fingerprinted)

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-0852
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-08-23T06:03:04.045886Z
status: published
lens: p_space
sector: health
headline: Multidisciplinary dental treatment planning by artificial intelligence: A comparative evaluation
dek: Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare four AI software programs-ChatGPT-5, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini (V 2.5), and OpenEvidence-in generating comprehensive dental treatment plans for minimally destructed and severely mutilated teeth using identical clinical inputs. Material and methods Ten anonymized clinical cases, each consisting of 1 intraoral photograph and 1 corresponding periapical radiograph, were independently submitted to each AI software program using a standardized prompt…
gain_title: (none)
problem_title: OpenEvidence and ChatGPT-5 demonstrated greater agreement with the expert reference standard, although clinically significant diagnostic errors were observed across all evaluated systems.
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
problem_reading: OpenEvidence and ChatGPT-5 demonstrated greater agreement with the expert reference standard, although clinically significant diagnostic errors were observed across all evaluated systems.
problem_evidence: (none)
quick_read: Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare four AI software programs-ChatGPT-5, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini (V 2.5), and OpenEvidence-in generating comprehensive dental treatment plans for minimally destructed and severely mutilated teeth using identical clinical inputs. Material and methods Ten anonymized clinical cases, each consisting of 1 intraoral photograph and 1 corresponding periapical radiograph, were independently submitted to each AI software program using a standardized prompt.

AI-generated responses were evaluated using a structured scoring rubric across five domains: diagnostic accuracy, restorability assessment, multidisciplinary integration, treatment sequencing, and extraction appropriateness (score range: 0-10 per case). Results Substantial inter-evaluator agreement was observed (κ = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.68-0.80), indicating consistent application of the scoring rubric.
limitation: 
tag: Evidence-backed problem
key_points: Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare four AI software programs-ChatGPT-5, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini (V 2.5), and OpenEvidence-in generating comprehensive dental treatment plans for minimally destructed and severely mutilated teeth using identical clinical inputs. | Material and methods Ten anonymized clinical cases, each consisting of 1 intraoral photograph and 1 corresponding periapical radiograph, were independently submitted to each AI software program using a standardized prompt. | A reference standard was established through consensus among four calibrated specialists (one surgically trained prosthodontist, one restorative dentist, one prosthodontist, and one endodontist).
rundown: Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare four AI software programs-ChatGPT-5, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini (V 2.5), and OpenEvidence-in generating comprehensive dental treatment plans for minimally destructed and severely mutilated teeth using identical clinical inputs. Material and methods Ten anonymized clinical cases, each consisting of 1 intraoral photograph and 1 corresponding periapical radiograph, were independently submitted to each AI software program using a standardized prompt.

A reference standard was established through consensus among four calibrated specialists (one surgically trained prosthodontist, one restorative dentist, one prosthodontist, and one endodontist). AI-generated responses were evaluated using a structured scoring rubric across five domains: diagnostic accuracy, restorability assessment, multidisciplinary integration, treatment sequencing, and extraction appropriateness (score range: 0-10 per case).
sources:
- peer_reviewed | Journal of Prosthodontics | https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.70226 | 2026-08-21
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
sha256
832b88124e53c4058613ec88036bb03a8f3ab7a37c195f854c09257b883dd0b4
previous
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Verify this record
How to verify without trusting this page

Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-0852 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.