ArticleScientific reports2025
Large language models for autism: evaluating theory of mind tasks in a gamified environment.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Autism Spectrum Disorder often significantly affects reciprocal social communication, leading to difficulties in interpreting social cues, recognizing emotions, and maintaining verbal interactions. These challenges can make everyday conversations especially demanding. To support autistic people in developing their social competence and communication abilities, we propose an interactive game specifically designed to enhance social understanding. By incorporating gamification elements and a user-centered design approach, the application aims to balance clinical relevance with high usability, ensuring it remains accessible, engaging, and beneficial for anyone seeking to improve their social skills. Large Language Models have recently been assessed for their ability to detect sarcasm and irony within Theory of Mind tasks, showing performance comparable to that of trained psychologists. However, a significant limitation remains: their dependence on traditional "black box" AI architectures, which often lack explainability, interpretability, and transparency. This limitation is particularly concerning when people with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder use these models to learn and practice social skills in safe, virtual environments. This study investigates and compares the performance of Large Language Models and human experts in evaluating Theory of Mind tasks, providing a detailed comparative analysis. A total of 21 participants engaged with our game, and their responses were assessed by four human experts alongside GPT-4o. The results indicate that GPT-4o matches human experts in both adherence to instructional criteria and evaluation accuracy, with no statistically significant differences observed. These findings underscore the potential of LLMs to support scalable, always-available social training systems that are accessible from anywhere.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.