ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2025
A Lexicon-Based Analysis of Public Knowledge Regarding the Causes and Interventions for Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People around individuals with autism spectrum disorders, such as their families or teachers, use multiple sources of information, either concurrently or sequentially, to obtain autism-related information. Recently, social media platforms have become primary sources of information. However, these sources may provide information that is either accurate or inaccurate. In this study, information regarding the causes and interventions of autism spectrum disorder disseminated through X was examined and discussed in line with the literature. A total of 6,861 tweets posted between January 2000 and October 2022 were collected and filtered, resulting in 4,805 unique tweets. Using a lexicon-based factual classification approach, each tweet was labeled as accurate, inaccurate, or neutral based on its alignment with established scientific literature. Tweets labeled as neutral were subsequently excluded from further analysis, resulting in a final dataset of 3,114 tweets. The lexicon-based sentiment analysis revealed that 78.6% of tweets related to the causes of ASD were classified as inaccurate, while only 21.4% were classified as accurate. Similarly, 57.9% of tweets concerning interventions were inaccurate, whereas 42.1% were accurate. The autism-related information available on X reaches a broad audience. However, the findings highlight the persistent challenges in addressing misinformation about ASD on social media platforms, emphasizing the urgent need for strategies that foster accurate, evidence-based discourse.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40844686What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.