Can artificial intelligence models provide reliable medical counselling to fertility patients?
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.015 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".