Determining accuracy of diagnosis and management of common presenting semen analyses using artificial intelligence programs

Overall, Bard was more accurate in providing correct analytical information regarding semen analysis (50% <i>vs</i>. 29%). Bard generated consistently accurate first diagnosis (75% <i>vs</i>. 43%). Bing resulted in increased accuracy regarding next steps (100% <i>vs</i>. 75%). Both programs recommended discussing semen analysis results with a physician. Overall, Bing and Bard are not capable of consistently providing patients with accurate analysis, diagnosis, or next steps when given a sample semen analysis. Specific training sets must be developed to provide with accurate interpretation of their urological results in a user-friendly format that can be further addressed with their physician.