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
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout


Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Waldinger MD, Schweitzer DH. Postorgasmic illness syndrome: two cases. J Sex Marital Ther. 2002;28:251–5.
Waldinger MD. Post orgasmic illness syndrome (POIS). Transl Androl Urol. 2016;5:602–6.
Nguyen HMT, Bala A, Gabrielson AT, Hellstrom WJG. Post-orgasmic illness syndrome: a review. Sex Med Rev. 2018;6:11–15.
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.
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.
Odusanya BO, Pearce I, Modgil V. Post orgasmic illness syndrome: a review. Int J Impot Res. 2025;37:422–5.
Reisman Y. Clinical experience with post-orgasmic illness syndrome (POIS) patients: characteristics and possible treatment modality. Int J Impot Res. 2021;33:556–62.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jain V, Raut DK. Medical literature search dot com. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2011;77:135–40.
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.
Will ChatGPT transform healthcare? Nat Med. 2023;29:505-6.
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.
Sallam M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11:887.
Thorp HH. ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science. 2023;379:313.
Contreras Kallens P, Kristensen-McLachlan RD, Christiansen MH. Large language models demonstrate the potential of statistical learning in language. Cogn Sci. 2023;47:e13256.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
Karabacak M, Margetis K. Embracing large language models for medical applications: opportunities and challenges. Cureus. 2023;15:e39305.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
About this article
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
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01200-9