ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
An
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: This study evaluates the capability of various general-purpose and healthcare-specialized Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms in identifying Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) from clinical narratives. Methods: Using twenty standardized pediatric case reports (10 ASD and 10 non-ASD), the evaluation assessed diagnostic accuracy, concordance with clinical diagnoses, and statistical performance across different AI architectures. Results: The platforms demonstrated diverse operational profiles; Gemini 3 Pro achieved the highest rates of sensitivity and specificity, while other evaluated models exhibited sensitivity rates ranging from 60% to 90%. While statistical differences in performance between general-purpose and specialized systems were not significant (P> 0.799), advanced large language models showed the ability to reason through complex diagnostic narratives. Conclusion: These findings suggest that advanced general-purpose AI platforms can offer valuable support in interpreting complex ASD case narratives. To ensure clinical safety, incorporating stratified frameworks and standardized protocols remains essential. Further evaluation is required to determine the precise role of these tools.
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.