Evidence Hub

The performance of large language models in dentomaxillofacial radiology: a systematic review

Ze-Kai Liu, Andrew Nalley, Jing Hao, Qi-Yong H. Ai, Andy Wai Kan Yeung, Ray Tanaka, K. Hung

Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2025

8 participants · 31 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to systematically review the current performance of large language models (LLMs) in dento-maxillofacial radiology (DMFR). Methods Five electronic databases were used to identify studies that developed, fine-tuned, or evaluated LLMs for DMFR-related tasks. Data extracted included study purpose, LLM type, images/text source, applied language, dataset characteristics, input and output, performance outcomes, evaluation methods, and reference standards. Customized assessment criteria adapted from the TRIPOD-LLM reporting guideline were used to evaluate the risk-of-bias in the included studies specifically regarding the clarity of dataset origin, the robustness of performance evaluation methods, and the validity of the reference standards. Results The initial search yielded 1621 titles, and 19 studies were included. These studies investigated the use of LLMs for tasks including the production and answering of DMFR-related qualification exams and educational questions (n = 8), diagnosis and treatment recommendations (n = 7), and radiology report generation and patient communication (n = 4). LLMs demonstrated varied performance in diagnosing dental conditions, with accuracy ranging from 37% to 92.5% and expert ratings for differential diagnosis and treatment planning between 3.6 and 4.7 on a 5-point scale. For DMFR-related qualification exams and board-style questions, LLMs achieved correctness rates between 33.3% and 86.1%. Automated radiology…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 8 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free