Responses of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots to Testosterone Replacement Therapy: Patients Beware!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Using chatbots to seek healthcare information is becoming more popular. Misinformation and gaps in knowledge exist regarding the risk and benefits of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT). We aimed to assess and compare the quality and readability of responses generated by four AI chatbots. Methods: ChatGPT, Google Bard, Bing Chat, and Perplexity AI were asked the same eleven questions regarding TRT. The responses were evaluated by four reviewers using DISCERN and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) questionnaires. Readability was assessed using the Readability Scoring system v2.0. to calculate the Flesch–Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Kruskal–Wallis statistics were completed using GraphPad Prism V10.1.0. Results: Google Bard received the highest DISCERN (56.5) and PEMAT (96% understandability and 74% actionability), demonstrating the highest quality. The readability scores ranged from eleventh-grade level to college level, with Perplexity outperforming the other chatbots. Significant differences were found in understandability between Bing and Google Bard, DISCERN scores between Bing and Google Bard, FRES between ChatGPT and Perplexity, and FKGL scoring between ChatGPT and Perplexity AI. Conclusions: ChatGPT and Google Bard were the top performers based on their quality, understandability, and actionability. Despite Perplexity scoring higher in readability, the generated text still maintained an eleventh-grade complexity. Perplexity stood out for its extensive use of citations; however, it offered repetitive answers despite the diversity of questions posed to it. Google Bard demonstrated a high level of detail in its answers, offering additional value through visual aids. With improvements in technology, these AI chatbots may improve. Until then, patients and providers should be aware of the strengths and shortcomings of each.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".