Publication: Can artificial intelligence models provide reliable medical counselling to fertility patients?
Program
KU-Authors
KU Authors
Co-Authors
Alcalay, I.
Weissman, A.
Ganer Herman, H.
Tsafrir, A.
Friedman, M.
Weiner, E.
Orvieto, R.
Polyzos, N.P.
Dahan, M.H.
Polyakov, A.
Editor & Affiliation
Compiler & Affiliation
Translator
Other Contributor
Date
Language
eng
Type
Embargo Status
No
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Alternative Title
Abstract
Research question: Can generative artificial intelligence (AI) models provide reliable counselling to fertility patients regarding real-world clinical questions? Design: In this cross-sectional study, 12 clinical questions were developed to reflect common, real-life dilemmas encountered during fertility workup and treatment. Responses to each question were generated by two experienced fertility specialists, and two AI models – ChatGPT and Gemini. Eight leading internationally recognized fertility experts, blinded to the source of each reply, independently rated all the responses on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). Ratings were compared across all four repliers using non-parametric statistical tests. Results: The replies authored by physicians received significantly higher overall scores than those generated by AI models (P < 0.001). The median scores were highest for Doctor A (9.0), followed by Doctor B (8.0), then ChatGPT (7.0) and finally Gemini, which received the lowest score (4.5). The proportion of high-scoring responses (≥8) was greatest for Doctor A (70.8%), followed by Doctor B (56.3%), then ChatGPT (47.9%) and finally Gemini (35.4%) (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Experienced fertility specialists outperformed generative AI models in providing accurate responses to complex clinical questions. Despite the growing accessibility and sophistication of AI tools, their use for individualized fertility counselling remains limited. Continued refinement and clinical validation of AI tools are essential before they can be considered reliable for patient-specific guidance. At present, AI should be viewed as a complementary resource rather than a substitute for expert clinical judgement. © 2025
Source
Publisher
Elsevier
Subject
Obstetrics and gynecology
Citation
Has Part
Source
Reproductive BioMedicine Online
Book Series Title
Edition
DOI
10.1016/j.rbmo.2025.105237
item.page.datauri
Link
Rights
N/A
Copyrights Note
Creative Commons license
Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as N/A
