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.