ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Autism-Related Information on Websites and General-Purpose Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: Comparative, Bilingual Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Parents increasingly consult the internet, both websites and, more recently, artificial intelligence chatbots, for information on autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, the comparative quality of these two source types, especially across languages, remains underexplored. Objective: This study aimed to assess the completeness and accuracy of ASD information delivered by websites and 5 popular artificial intelligence chatbots and determine whether performance differs between English and Romanian content. Methods: In a cross-sectional design, 25 English-language and 25 Romanian-language websites and the responses of ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, and DeepSeek were evaluated. Content was benchmarked against a 24-item checklist, yielding completeness and accuracy scores. Chatbots were tested in 2 scenarios: a single broad query (A) and 24 item-specific queries (B). Results: Websites achieved higher completeness in English than in Romanian (6.9 vs 5.1; P=.007) and marginally higher accuracy (6.9 vs 6.1; P=.045). In scenario A, chatbot completeness (English: 5.3 vs Romanian: 6.2; P=.15) and accuracy (English: 6.0 vs Romanian: 5.6; P=.32) did not show significant differences by language. In the single-query scenario, websites showed higher accuracy than chatbots in both English (6.9 vs 6.0; P=.19) and Romanian (6.1 vs 5.6; P=.53), with neither difference reaching statistical significance. Conversely, item-specific questioning favored chatbots, which yielded higher accuracy scores than websites in English (8.3 vs 6.9; P=.053) and Romanian (8.0 vs 6.1; P=.007). Accuracy scores improved significantly from the single-query to the item-specific scenario (English: 6.0 vs 8.3; P=.002; Romanian: 5.6 vs 8.0; P=.001). While an initial analysis suggested variation in performance between chatbots (repeated measures ANOVA; P=.005), pairwise differences between individual models did not remain significant after adjustment for multiple testing. Conclusions: This exploratory study indicates that the quality of online ASD information varies by language and source context. English-language websites are more complete than Romanian-language websites. Among chatbots, targeted questioning yields more accurate answers than single broad queries in both languages. The findings should be interpreted cautiously due to the temporal gap between website and chatbot data collection.
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.