Journal of Oral Biology
Research Article
Assessing the Accuracy and Clinical Applicability of Chat Gpt: Navigating Tumors in Oral Pathology
Kaparaboina AR*, Ayinampudi BK, Gayathri CH, Kurakula S and Gannepalli A
Department of Oral Pathology, Panineeya Institute of Dental sciences and Research Centre, Hyderabad, India
*Address for Correspondence:Dr.Anjana Raj Kaparaboina,
Department of Oral Pathology, Panineeya Institute of Dental sciences and
Research Centre, Hyderabad, India. E-mail Id: araj91198@gmail.com
Submission:19 November 2025
Accepted:16 December 2025
Published: 18 December 2025
Copyright: ©2025 Kaparaboina AR, et al. This is an open access
article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Keywords:Oral Pathology; Chat GPT; Artificial Intelligence; Oral Tumors
Abstract
Chat GPT, with its advanced language processing capabilities,
can be a valuable tool in the field of oral pathology. It can assist
professionals by providing instant access to a vast repository of
medical knowledge, aiding in the diagnosis of oral diseases through
symptom analysis and suggesting possible differential diagnoses. This
study aimed to evaluate the potential usefulness of Chat Generated
Pre-Trained Transformer-3.5 (ChatGPT-3.5) in oral and maxillofacial
Pathology for report writing by identifying radiographic, anatomical
landmarks and learning about oral and maxillofacial pathologies and
their histological features. A questionnaire consisting of 90 questions
was queried on the Open AI app, ChatGPT-3.5. These questions were
segregated based on three categories. The categorization was done
as Category 1: simple or elementary level prompts (straight forward
questions), Category 2: Intermediate level prompt (question which
require reasoning), Category3: Intricate level prompts (Case history
related questions).The mean scores for the evaluated categories were
as follows: Category 1 had a mean score of 3.93, Category 2 had a
mean score of 3.66, and Category 3 had a mean score of 3.76. Across
all categories, the median score was 4, indicating that at least 50% of
the responses were rated at this level. The mode for all categories was
also 4, reflecting the most frequently occurring score. These central
tendency measures suggest a generally positive assessment across the
categories.
