Integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Dentistry: Enhancing Diagnosis, Treatment Planning, and Procedural Precision Through Advanced Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is poised to transform clinical dentistry by enhancing diagnostic accuracy, personalizing treatment planning, and improving procedural precision. This study integrates logic programming and entropy within knowledge representation and reasoning to generate hypotheses, quantify uncertainty, and support clinical decisions. A six-month longitudinal questionnaire was administered to 127 dentists, of whom 119 provided valid responses across four dimensions: current use and knowledge (CUKD), potential applications (PAD), future perspectives (FPD), and challenges and barriers (CBD). Responses, analyzed with both classical statistics and entropy-based measures, revealed significant differences among dimensions (p < 0.01, η2 = 0.14). CUKD, PAD, and FPD all increased steadily over time (baseline means 2.32, 3.06, and 3.27; rising to 3.75, 4.51, and 4.71, respectively), while CBD remained more variable (1.87–3.87). The overall entropic state declined from 0.43 to 0.31 (p = 0.018), reflecting reduced uncertainty. Statistical and entropy-derived trends converged, suggesting growing professional clarity and cautious acceptance of GAI. These findings indicate that, despite persistent concerns, GAI holds promise for advancing adaptive and evidence-driven dental practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it