ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Large Language Model-Assisted Annotation Framework for Cross-Platform Analysis of Online Autism Communities: Implications for Parent Education and Digital Support.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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.
- Large Language Model-Assisted Annotation Framework for Cross-Platform Analysis of Online Autism Communities: Implications for Parent Education and Digital Support.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnline health communities (OHCs) are important channels for families of children with autism spectrum disorder to obtain health information and psychosocial support. Differences between an open forum platform and the physician-patient consultation platforms may shape caregiver decisions, yet comparative evidence from China remains limited. A large language model (LLM) provides a scalable approach for systematic content annotation in large OHC datasets.
objectiveThis study proposes and validates a standardized LLM-assisted annotation framework under a unified classification schema and compares topic distributions and poster identities across an open forum platform (Baidu Tieba) and physician-patient consultation platforms (Chunyu Doctor and Haodf).
methodsWe implemented an LLM-assisted annotation framework. A unified taxonomy of topics and poster identities was first developed through human open coding. Poster identities in Baidu Tieba were annotated through a double-blind manual procedure. For topic classification, interannotator and human-LLM agreement were evaluated on a manually labeled subset to benchmark models of varying sizes. The best-performing LLM was selected for full-dataset topic annotation, followed by statistical and cross-platform analysis.
resultsWhen metrics were arithmetically averaged across all annotation tasks, the best-performing LLM achieved agreement levels comparable to human annotation (accuracy=79.18%, SD 0.20%; κ=0.736, SD 0.003; F
conclusionsThe LLM-assisted annotation framework proposed in this study enables reliable large-scale annotation of OHC data while maintaining high human-LLM agreement and operational stability. Midsized models (eg, 14B) demonstrated favorable cost-performance efficiency. The findings reveal 2 key aspects: the open forum platform exhibits a complex participation structure, and the influence of commercially affiliated actors should not be overlooked; users on both platform types show sustained demand for resource-related information but follow different help-seeking pathways, emphasizing diagnostic exploration and professional intervention, respectively. These results suggest that platform structure and governance mechanisms may shape caregivers' information access and decision-making. The framework provides a transparent, reproducible, and cost-effective approach for OHC research. All data were deidentified and handled in accordance with relevant platform policies and ethical standards.
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.