TikTok and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Cross-Sectional Study of Social Media Content Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Social media platforms are increasingly being used to disseminate mental health information online. User-generated content about attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most popular health topics on the video-sharing social media platform TikTok. We sought to investigate the quality of TikTok videos about ADHD. Method The top 100 most popular videos about ADHD uploaded by TikTok video creators were classified as misleading, useful, or personal experience. Descriptive and quantitative characteristics of the videos were obtained. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-A/V) and Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria were used to assess the overall quality, understandability, and actionability of the videos. Results Of the 100 videos meeting inclusion criteria, 52% ( n = 52) were classified as misleading, 27% ( n = 27) as personal experience, and 21% ( n = 21) as useful. Classification agreement between clinician ratings was 86% (kappa statistic of 0.7766). Videos on the platform were highly understandable by viewers but had low actionability. Non-healthcare providers uploaded the majority of misleading videos. Healthcare providers uploaded higher quality and more useful videos, compared to non-healthcare providers. Conclusions Approximately half of the analyzed TikTok videos about ADHD were misleading. Clinicians should be aware of the widespread dissemination of health misinformation on social media platforms and its potential impact on clinical care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".