Multidimensional Evaluation of Large Language Models on the AAP In-Service Examination: Assessing Accuracy, Calibration, and Citation Reliability

BackgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have demonstrated rapid advancements in natural language understanding and generation, prompting their integration into biomedical research, clinical practice, and professional education. However, systematic evaluation of LLMs in specialty-specific domains such as dentistry and periodontology remain limited, particularly regarding multidimensional performance metrics. ObjectiveTo conduct a comprehensive, multidimensional assessment of commercially available LLMs: GPT-4.0, GPT-5.0, and Claude SONNET 4.0 on the American Academy of Periodontology in-service examination, focusing on response accuracy, self-assessed confidence calibration, citation validity, and hallucination prevalence. MethodsModels were evaluated on the 2024 AAP In-Service Examination (331 questions) using two formats: Full Test (all questions at once) and Individual Question (one at a time). Prompts were standardized; models selected answers, and for GPT-5.0 and Claude SONNET 4.0, also provided confidence ratings and citations. Citation validity was assessed using a human-in-the-loop protocol with expert review. Statistical analyses included chi-square, McNemars, and logistic regression to assess accuracy, question fatigue, confidence calibration, and citation reliability. ResultsLLMs achieved high overall accuracy (78-87%), with the Individual Question format consistently yielding higher scores than Full Test, though differences were not statistically significant. Accuracy was highest in fact-dense domains (biochemistry, physiology, microbiology) and lowest in integrative domains (diagnosis, therapy). Significant question fatigue was observed in GPT-5.0 Full Test mode (OR = 0.997, p = 0.035), but not in Individual Question mode. Confidence scores predicted accuracy, with the strongest calibration in Individual Question mode. Citation analysis revealed frequent hallucinations, mostly critically erroneous, and citation validity was independent of answer accuracy. ConclusionsLLMs can answer a broad spectrum of periodontal specialty questions, but their reliability varies with context and information presentation. While promising as adjunctive tools, their outputs-- especially for complex reasoning and citations--require rigorous human review in educational and research settings to ensure accuracy and safety. Author SummaryArtificial intelligence chatbots are rapidly entering medical education, yet we lack comprehensive understanding of their reliability when students depend on them for learning. We developed a multidimensional evaluation framework to systematically assess AI performance beyond simple accuracy, examining how these systems behave across different medical topics, question types, and presentation formats. Using 331 real dental examination questions, we tested three major AI systems, analyzing not only correctness but also confidence calibration - whether AI confidence levels match actual accuracy - and implementing human-in-the-loop verification to check if cited sources actually exist. Our findings highlight critical vulnerabilities in current AI systems. Most alarmingly, these chatbots fabricated nearly half of their citations while maintaining unwavering confidence in both correct and incorrect responses. This combination of overconfidence and misinformation means students cannot distinguish reliable from unreliable AI responses. Additionally, we documented progressive performance decline during sequential questioning, similar to human cognitive fatigue. While we know AI systems generate rather than retrieve information, our research demonstrates the real-world consequences of this limitation. As artificial intelligence integrates into education, healthcare diagnostics, and insurance decisions, these findings underscore the urgent need for better evaluation frameworks and user education about AI limitations.