Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Artificial intelligence meets medical rarity: evaluating ChatGPT’s responses on post-orgasmic illness syndrome

Abstract

Post-Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS) is a rare and debilitating condition characterized by systemic and cognitive symptoms following ejaculation. As patients increasingly seek health information from artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT, evaluating the accuracy, consistency, and readability of these responses is especially important in the context of underrecognized conditions like POIS, where patients often encounter limited access to specialist care and evidence-based educational resources. This makes generative AI a likely source of health information, underscoring the need to evaluate the accuracy, consistency, and readability of its outputs. This study assessed the performance of ChatGPT version 4o (ChatGPT-4o) in generating patient-directed responses to POIS-related questions. Sixteen real-world questions were selected across four content domains: epidemiology, treatment, treatment risks, and counseling. Each question was submitted to ChatGPT-4o on two different days using separate accounts. Responses were independently graded by three English-speaking urologists with expertise in men’s sexual health and andrology using a validated 4-point scale: “correct and comprehensive,” “correct but inadequate,” “mixed correct and incorrect,” and “completely incorrect.” Reproducibility was defined by whether the two responses received the same grading category, and Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated to measure inter-rater agreement. Readability was assessed using the Gunning Fog Index (GFI). ChatGPT-4o demonstrated high performance in the epidemiology and counseling domains, achieving 100% accuracy and 100% reproducibility (κ = 1.00). However, accuracy dropped to 50% in the treatment and risk domains, with lower reproducibility (κ = 0.25). Readability scores worsened significantly from Day 1 to Day 2 across all domains (p < 0.05), indicating a shift toward more linguistically complex, less accessible language. While ChatGPT-4o shows potential in supporting patient education for rare conditions like POIS, its variability in treatment content and elevated language complexity limit its reliability as a stand-alone medical resource. These findings underscore the need for expert oversight and further model refinement before large language models can be safely integrated into clinical patient communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Accuracy of ChatGPT-4o responses per domain to questions about POIS on Day 1.
Fig. 2: Accuracy of ChatGPT-4o responses per domain to questions about POIS on Day 2.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Waldinger MD, Schweitzer DH. Postorgasmic illness syndrome: two cases. J Sex Marital Ther. 2002;28:251–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Waldinger MD. Post orgasmic illness syndrome (POIS). Transl Androl Urol. 2016;5:602–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Nguyen HMT, Bala A, Gabrielson AT, Hellstrom WJG. Post-orgasmic illness syndrome: a review. Sex Med Rev. 2018;6:11–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jiang N, Xi G, Li H, Yin J. Postorgasmic illness syndrome (POIS) in a Chinese man: no proof for IgE-mediated allergy to semen. J Sex Med. 2015;12:840–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Abdessater M, Elias S, Mikhael E, Alhammadi A, Beley S. Post orgasmic illness syndrome: what do we know till now? Basic Clin Androl. 2019;29:13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Odusanya BO, Pearce I, Modgil V. Post orgasmic illness syndrome: a review. Int J Impot Res. 2025;37:422–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Reisman Y. Clinical experience with post-orgasmic illness syndrome (POIS) patients: characteristics and possible treatment modality. Int J Impot Res. 2021;33:556–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Strashny A. First assessment of the validity of the only diagnostic criteria for postorgasmic illness syndrome (POIS). Int J Impot Res. 2019;31:369–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Albayrak AT, Serefoglu EC. Editorial comment on “First assessment of the validity of the only diagnostic criteria for postorgasmic illness syndrome (POIS)”. Int J Impot Res. 2019;31:374–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson O, Baer E, Mondesir R, Perelmuter S, Stokes C, Soogoor A, et al. A radical approach to treating post-orgasmic illness syndrome: a correspondence. Int J Impot Res. Published online April 22, 2025.

  11. Duran MB, Rubin RS, Reisman Y, Serefoglu EC. Recognition and practice patterns of sexual medicine experts towards postorgasmic illness syndrome. Int J Impot Res. 2025;37:454–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jain V, Raut DK. Medical literature search dot com. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2011;77:135–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Russo GI, di Mauro M, Cocci A, Cacciamani G, Cimino S, Serefoglu EC, et al. Consulting “Dr Google” for sexual dysfunction: a contemporary worldwide trend analysis. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:455–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Will ChatGPT transform healthcare? Nat Med. 2023;29:505-6.

  15. Grajales FJ 3rd, Sheps S, Ho K, Novak-Lauscher H, Eysenbach G. Social media: a review and tutorial of applications in medicine and health care. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16:e13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sallam M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11:887.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thorp HH. ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science. 2023;379:313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Contreras Kallens P, Kristensen-McLachlan RD, Christiansen MH. Large language models demonstrate the potential of statistical learning in language. Cogn Sci. 2023;47:e13256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. ChatGPT’s first birthday is November 30: a year in review [Internet]. [cited 2025 Jun 3]. Available from: https://www.similarweb.com/blog/insights/ai-news/chatgpt-birthday/

  20. Razdan S, Siegal AR, Brewer Y, Sljivich M, Valenzuela RJ. Assessing ChatGPT’s ability to answer questions pertaining to erectile dysfunction: can our patients trust it? Int J Impot Res. 2024;36:734–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Şahin MF, Keleş A, Özcan R, Doǧan Ç, Topkaç EC, Akgül M, et al. Evaluation of information accuracy and clarity: ChatGPT responses to the most frequently asked questions about premature ejaculation. Sex Med. 2024;12:qfae036.

  22. Bahçeci T, Elmaağaç B, Ceyhan E. Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of Microsoft Copilot artificial intelligence chatbot and Google Search in answering patient inquiries about infertility: evaluating readability, understandability, and actionability. Int J Impot Res. Published online April 22, 2025.

  23. Mouhawasse E, Haff CW, Kumar P, Lack B, Chu K, Bansal U, et al. Can AI chatbots accurately answer patient questions regarding vasectomies? Int J Impot Res. Published online August 24, 2024.

  24. Karabacak M, Margetis K. Embracing large language models for medical applications: opportunities and challenges. Cureus. 2023;15:e39305.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang L, Chen X, Deng XW, Wen H, You M, Liu WZ, et al. Prompt engineering in consistency and reliability with the evidence-based guideline for LLMs. NPJ Digit Med. 2024;7:41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Patil R, Heston TF, Bhuse V. Prompt engineering in healthcare. Electronics [Internet]. 2024 Jul 26 [cited 2025 Jul 18];13(15):2961. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/13/15/2961

  27. Yeo YH, Samaan JS, Ng WH, Ting PS, Trivedi H, Vipani A, et al. Assessing the performance of ChatGPT in answering questions regarding cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2023;29:721–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Gunning R. The Technique of Clear Writing. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1952 [cited 2025 Jun 3]. Available from: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2056050

  29. Foe G, Larson EL. Reading level and comprehension of research consent forms: an integrative review. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016;11:31–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Eltorai AE, Naqvi SS, Ghanian S, Eberson CP, Weiss APC, Born CT, et al. Readability of invasive procedure consent forms. Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8:830–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). NHLBI Guidelines for Consent Forms in Multicenter Clinical Studies [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health (NIH); [cited 2025 Jun 3]. Available from: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/grants-and-training/policies-and-guidelines/nhlbi-guidelines-for-consent-forms-in-multicenter-clinical-studies

  32. Chelli M, Descamps J, Lavoué V, Trojani C, Azar M, Deckert M, et al. Hallucination rates and reference accuracy of ChatGPT and Bard for systematic reviews: comparative analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e53164.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Moult B, Franck LS, Brady H. Ensuring quality information for patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information. Health Expect. 2004;7:165–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

ECŞ is the Editor-in-Chief of The International Journal of Impotence Research. Other authors declare that he/she has no conflict of interest. No grants were accepted.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

DS: Data Curation, Investigation, Writing—Review & Editing. ATA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Supervision. ZS: Software, Visualization, Statistical Validation, Supervision. YB: Resources, Project Administration, Writing. ECŞ: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—Review & Editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmet Tevfik Albayrak.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sökmen, D., Albayrak, A.T., Sertkaya, Z. et al. Artificial intelligence meets medical rarity: evaluating ChatGPT’s responses on post-orgasmic illness syndrome. Int J Impot Res (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01200-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01200-9

Search

Quick links