Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37985815›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2024

Assessing ChatGPT's ability to answer questions pertaining to erectile dysfunction: can our patients trust it?

Shirin Razdan, Alexandra R Siegal, Yukiko Brewer, Michaela Sljivich, Robert J Valenzuela

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shirin RazdanDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, 10029, USA. shirin.razdan@mountsinai.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9098-3447
Alexandra R SiegalDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Yukiko BrewerDepartment of Internal Medicine, HCA Florida Sarasota Doctors Hospital, Sarasota, FL, 34233, USA.
Michaela SljivichDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Robert J ValenzuelaDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, 10029, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5831-5947

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Erectile DysfunctionArtificial IntelligenceComprehensionHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareSurveys and QuestionnairesTrust

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.