ArticleThe world journal of men's health2026
Does the Quality and Readability of Information Related to Varicocele Obtained from ChatGPT 4.0 Remain Consistent Across Different Models of Inquiry?
Article in The world journal of men's health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-5 responses to patient-centered questions on stromal vascular fraction for knee osteoarthritis: fair to good quality and content.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThere is a growing tendency of individuals resorting to Chat-Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) as a source of medical information on specific ailments. Varicocele is a prevalent condition affecting the male reproductive system. The quality, readability, and consistency of the information related to varicocele that individuals obtain through interactive access to ChatGPT remains uncertain. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study employed Google Trends data to extract 25 trending questions since 2004. Two distinct inquiry methodologies were employed with ChatGPT 4.0: repetition mode (each question repeated three times) and cyclic mode (each question input once in three consecutive cycles). The generated texts were evaluated according to a number of criteria, including the Automated Readability Index (ARI), the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), the Gunning Fog Index (GFI), the DISCERN score and the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP). Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were employed to compare the text quality, readability, and consistency between the two modes.
resultsThe results demonstrated that the texts generated in repetition and cyclic modes exhibited no statistically significant differences in ARI (12.06±1.29
conclusionsThis study found that ChatGPT-generated medical information on "varicocele" demonstrates consistent quality and readability across different modes, highlighting its potential for stable healthcare information provision. However, the content's complexity poses challenges for general readers, and notable limitations in quality and reliability highlight the need for improved accuracy, credibility, and readability in AI-generated medical content.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.