ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2025
Determining accuracy of diagnosis and management of common presenting semen analyses using artificial intelligence programs.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Over the past few years, artificial intelligence (AI) platforms have rapidly gained popularity within medicine. While AI has been applied in various subspecialties of urology, its role in evaluating male factor infertility has not been explored. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two commonly used AI programs, Google's "Bard" and Bing. This study aimed to assess each program's accuracy in correctly diagnosing a sample patient's semen analysis results and recommending appropriate next steps following diagnosis. Methods: Each respective AI program was given a set of data which included semen volume, pH, concentration, and sperm motility as a percentage along with a command to list the three most likely diagnoses and the next steps the patient should take. The data sets ranged from entirely normal to abnormal with clearly obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermia, teratozoospermia, oligospermia, or asthenospermia. Study personnel determined the clinical diagnostic accuracy of both Bard's and Bing's semen analysis interpretations. No patient data was utilized for this study. Results: Bing resulted in only 29% accuracy of interpretation while 57% of results provided partially correct responses. First, second, and third, diagnoses provided resulted in 43%, 29% and 43% accuracy, respectively. Each analysis was 100% accurate in the next steps the patient should take and recommended discussing results with a physician 100% of the time. Bard was slightly more accurate regarding semen analysis with 50% accuracy. First, second, and third diagnoses provided resulted in 75%, 25%, and 25% accuracy, respectively. Bard had 75% accuracy regarding next steps but also had a 100% accuracy rating for recommending discussing results with a physician. Conclusions: Overall, Bard was more accurate in providing correct analytical information regarding semen analysis (50%
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.