ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2026
Accuracy of Autism-Related TikTok Information in Italian: A Comparison Between Human Raters and Large Language Models.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSocial networking sites are major channels for sharing information on neurodiversity, including autism spectrum disorder. TikTok has become a particularly influential platform for autism-related communication, yet concerns remain about the scientific accuracy of such content. Most prior studies have focused on English-language videos and have evaluated accuracy with limited granularity. Additionally, the difficulty of achieving consistent expert ratings underscores the need for automated reliability assessment.
methodsIn this study, we examined 408 informational statements extracted from 148 TikTok videos posted under the hashtag #Autismo (Italian for #Autism). Three clinical experts independently classified each statement as inaccurate, overgeneralized, or accurate; their median ratings served as the human-derived ground truth and were compared with classifications from two large language models: ChatGPT 4.0 mini and Gemini 1.5 Flash.
resultsHuman raters showed moderate agreement (κmean = 0.52) and high specific agreement only for accurate statements, with lower agreement for overgeneralized and inaccurate content. ChatGPT achieved moderate agreement with human ratings (κ = 0.58), while Gemini reached only fair agreement (κ = 0.29). ChatGPT also exhibited a more conservative evaluation pattern (accurate information: precision = 0.89, recall = 0.82), whereas Gemini tended to overestimate accuracy (accurate information: precision = 0.76, recall = 0.93).
conclusionThese findings suggest that LLMs, particularly ChatGPT, may support cautious and assistive evaluation of online health content. Future research should assess their applicability across online communities and platforms and explore their integration into accuracy-based alert systems that provide users with contextual reliability cues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41706307What 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.