ArticlePNAS nexus2026
Gaps in large language model awareness, usage, and perceptions in the United States: Evidence from a nationally representative longitudinal survey.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of an Equity-Centered Sociotechnical Architecture for Generative AI Integration in Public Health Promotion: Conceptual Framework.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Prevalence and predictors of artificial intelligence chatbots use for caregiving: Evidence from the Understanding America Study.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to benefit users in both their work and personal lives, but which groups are quickest to adopt them? To investigate awareness, usage, and perceptions of LLMs among US adults across socio-demographic groups-and to track changes over time-we administered a two-wave survey using a nationally representative, probability-based online panel of 12,224 US residents. Across two survey waves spanning 1 year, we observed marked gaps in usage: groups more likely to use LLMs included men, younger adults, those with college education and higher incomes, individuals in more analytical occupations (e.g. STEM), Democratic-leaning respondents, and those with above-median cognitive ability, internet literacy, and openness to experience. These usage gaps do not appear to be declining and, in many cases, seem to be widening over time. Our analyses indicate that these disparities are associated with differences in both access-related factors (e.g. income, occupation, digital skills) and individual traits and preferences (e.g. openness to experience, political orientation). Overall, our data provide a dynamic picture of the rapidly evolving exposure to, adoption of, and attitudes toward LLMs in the US population.
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.