ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluating large language models for ADHD education: A comparative study of ChatGPT 5, DeepSeek V3, and Grok 4.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- ChatGPT-5.4 in health education: inter-generation stability and persistent readability challenges.Frontiers in public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChildren with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often face barriers to participating in organized sports, particularly when physical education (PE) is delivered by outsourced coaches with limited training in disability inclusion. Meanwhile, large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Grok are increasingly used to generate educational content, yet their readability, stability, and accuracy for non-specialist educators remain unclear.
methodsThis study systematically compared three advanced LLMs, ChatGPT 5, DeepSeek V3, and Grok 4, using identical prompts related to ADHD definitions, symptoms, and medication-exercise interactions. Thirty responses per model were collected. The primary endpoints were content accuracy, readability, and response stability. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score (FKRE), the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), alongside measures of lexical complexity.
resultsAll models aligned with DSM-5 in describing ADHD but differed in emphasis and stability. DeepSeek V3 produced the broadest and most variable outputs, Grok 4 showed the greatest consistency and clinical structure, and ChatGPT 5 generated concise and strengths-based explanations. However, all models exhibited high reading levels (FKGL > 12, FKRE < 40, SMOG > 12), exceeding recommended public-health readability standards for general audiences, which are typically around Grade 6-8.
conclusionWhile LLMs demonstrate strong potential for generating ADHD-related educational materials, their current readability and stability limitations restrict accessibility for non-specialist educators. Future work should focus on optimizing prompt design and language calibration to enhance usability in inclusive education contexts.
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.