ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2024
Assessing ChatGPT's ability to answer questions pertaining to erectile dysfunction: can our patients trust it?
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating Generative AI in Mental Health: Systematic Review of Capabilities and Limitations.JMIR mental health · 2025Pooled it
- Quality and Readability Analysis of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Medical Information Related to Prostate Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study of ChatGPT and DeepSeek.The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Quality assessment of artificial intelligence responses in erectile dysfunction: a comparative study based on EAU recommendations.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Comment on: Utilization of Artificial Intelligence in Men's Health: Opportunities for Innovation and Quality Improvement.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Utilization of artificial intelligence in Men's Health: Opportunities for innovation and quality improvement.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- Utilization and prospects of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis, prediction, and treatment of erectile dysfunction.Sexual medicine · 2026Review
- ZhongdaChat-ED: a medical large language model for personalized erectile dysfunction health consultation and professional clinical decision-making using retrieval-augmented generation.Asian journal of andrology · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models as an information resource on functional hypothalamic amenorrhea for patients and healthcare professionals.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Application value and controversies of artificial intelligence in public health prevention and control of postpartum depression.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence meets medical rarity: evaluating ChatGPT's responses on post-orgasmic illness syndrome.International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
- Feasibility analysis of generative artificial intelligence tools as a means of medical science popularization on urological diseases.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Article
- ChatGPT Provides Accurate but Incomplete Responses and Reliably Adjusts Readability to Prompts for Hamstring Injury Frequently Asked Questions.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Evaluating large language models as an educational tool for meningioma patients: patient and clinician perspectives.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Evaluating evidence-based health information from generative AI using a cross-sectional study with laypeople seeking screening information.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- AI-Driven Information for Relatives of Patients with Malignant Middle Cerebral Artery Infarction: A Preliminary Validation Study Using GPT-4o.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Commentary on: Frequently asked questions on erectile dysfunction: evaluating artificial intelligence answers with expert mentorship.International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
- Healthcare professionals and the public sentiment analysis of ChatGPT in clinical practice.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision-Making in Erectile Dysfunction: a Narrative Review.Current urology reports · 2024Review
- Comment on: Assessing ChatGPT's ability to answer questions pertaining to erectile dysfunction.International journal of impotence research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a disorder that can cause distress and shame for men suffering from it. Men with ED will often turn to online support and chat groups to ask intimate questions about their health. ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI)-based software that has been trained to engage in conversation with human input. We sought to assess the accuracy, readability, and reproducibility of ChatGPT's responses to frequently asked questions regarding the diagnosis, management, and care of patients with ED. Questions pertaining to ED were derived from clinic encounters with patients as well as online chat forums. These were entered into the free ChatGPT version 3.5 during the month of August 2023. Questions were asked on two separate days from unique accounts and computers to prevent the software from memorizing responses linked to a specific user. A total of 35 questions were asked. Outcomes measured were accuracy using grading from board certified urologists, readability with the Gunning Fog Index, and reproducibility by comparing responses between days. For epidemiology of disease, the percentage of responses that were graded as "comprehensive" or "correct but inadequate" was 100% across both days. There was fair reproducibility and median readability of 15.9 (IQR 2.5). For treatment and prevention, the percentage of responses that were graded as "comprehensive" or "correct but inadequate" was 78.9%. There was poor reproducibility of responses with a median readability of 14.5 (IQR 4.0). Risks of treatment and counseling both had 100% of questions graded as "comprehensive" or "correct but inadequate." The readability score for risks of treatment was median 13.9 (IQR 1.1) and for counseling median 13.8 (IQR 0.5), with good reproducibility for both question domains. ChatGPT provides accurate answers to common patient questions pertaining to ED, although its understanding of treatment options is incomplete and responses are at a reading level too advanced for the average patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37985815What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.