Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 97 references

Characterizing Collective Efforts in Content Sharing and Quality Control for ADHD-relevant Content on Video-sharing Platforms

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read ADHD videos on YouTube and TikTok follow distinct creator and format profiles, with quality sustained by collective but imperfect viewer-creator efforts.

desk verdict Useful qualitative map of ADHD video ecosystems, but the quantitative platform comparisons are overclaimed given the sampling design. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13020 v2 pith:ZBHOT2OQ submitted 2025-01-22 cs.HC

Hanxiu 'Hazel' Zhu , Avanthika Senthil Kumar , Sihang Zhao , Ru Wang , Xin Tong , Yuhang Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords ADHDvideo-sharingplatformsYouTubeTikTokcontentqualityaccessibilitycollectivecontrolonlinehealthinformation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that ADHD-relevant videos on YouTube and TikTok differ systematically in who makes them, how they are presented, and what quality problems they carry, and that content quality is maintained through collective, visible, yet imperfect efforts by creators, viewers, and platforms. The authors analyzed 373 videos with associated comments using mixed methods. They argue that TikTok is dominated by individuals with ADHD sharing personal experiences in short, creative formats, while YouTube hosts more health professionals and organizations producing longer, more formal educational content. The paper also claims that quality control happens through authority building, references, disclaimers, and comment-based checking, and that accessibility issues such as video length, pace, distracting elements, and caption quality are central to whether ADHD viewers can use the content. The stakes matter because many people with ADHD rely on these videos for symptom recognition, help-seeking, and support.

What carries the argument

The analytical machinery is a mixed-method corpus study: 373 videos (189 YouTube, 184 TikTok) and the top 20 comments under each, collected through hashtag- and keyword-based searches and sampled by critical case sampling. The authors coded videos and comments through iterative thematic analysis, producing codebooks of 61 video codes and over 90 comment codes, then cross-referenced them into themes. This design lets the paper connect quantitative distributions of creator types, content types, and presentation forms with qualitative evidence of how quality and accessibility are negotiated in practice. The conceptual mechanism that carries the argument is the framing of quality control as a collective, multi-stakeholder effort—platform, creator, and viewer—rather than a property of individual videos.

What would settle it

A replication that draws a random sample from the full population of ADHD-tagged videos posted in a fixed period—rather than the top five most viewed plus five random per category—and finds that health professionals and organizations are just as prevalent on TikTok as on YouTube would falsify the claimed creator-type difference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ADHD-relevant content on video-sharing platforms is not a single genre: TikTok and YouTube serve different purposes and present different quality and accessibility challenges. On TikTok, 69.6% of creators were self-disclosed individuals with ADHD, and content leaned toward role-play, memes, and first-person POV, fostering intimate community support; on YouTube, institutions and organizations made up 14.2% of creators, health professionals were more common, and formal forms such as talks, interviews, news, and documentaries were significantly more prevalent. The paper further claims that quality control is a collective process: creators establish authorship through identity disclosure and platform recognition, add references, and post disclaimers; viewers assess, challenge, supplement, and summarize content in comments. These efforts have clear failure modes—vague credentials, irrelevant references, low-visibility disclaimers, and a gap between encouraging clinical diagnosis and providing resource pointers. Accessibility, including video length, slow pace, distracting sounds and visuals, and caption quality, is treated as an integral part of video quality for ADHD audiences, with viewers and creators improvising workarounds like timestamped breakdowns and speed adjustments.

Load-bearing premise

The 373-video sample, built from platform-default search rankings and the five most-viewed plus five random videos per topic category, is treated as representative enough to characterize ADHD content on each platform.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Platform designers cannot apply one quality standard across both platforms: TikTok's personal, identity-driven content and YouTube's professional, institutional content serve different help-seeking and community-building needs.
  • Quality-control signals such as disclaimers, references, and creator credentials need to be placed where ADHD viewers will actually see them, since these signals are currently scattered across descriptions, profiles, and comments and are often missed.
  • Comment-based quality checking is already functioning and could be amplified by platform features that surface challenges, corrections, and supplementary experiences, while guarding against misinformation that also appears in comments.
  • Accessibility features—chapters, summaries, pacing controls, caption quality, and distraction reduction—are not secondary polish but core determinants of whether ADHD viewers can benefit from health content.
  • Any quality-control intervention must respect the community's tension around self-diagnosis: encouraging clinical help should not stigmatize members who self-diagnose after careful research because professional evaluation is inaccessible to them.
  • Long, expert-produced YouTube videos, which are most likely to contain authoritative medical information, are often the least accessible to ADHD viewers due to length and pace, creating a paradox where the most reliable content is hardest to consume.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the sample overrepresents top-viewed videos, the exact percentages are less portable than the qualitative mechanisms; a broader random sample could shift the numbers without undermining the collective-effort finding.
  • The results imply that for ADHD viewers, content quality and accessibility are inseparable, so any quality-assessment tool that ignores captions, pacing, and length will systematically underrate videos that are actually useful.
  • The same three-part mechanism—authority building, collective checking, and accessibility improvement—likely appears in other neurodivergent health topics such as autism, but with different authority markers and different self-diagnosis stakes.
  • A testable design consequence is that consolidating quality signals into a single visible, low-distraction interface element would improve trust without requiring viewers to read descriptions or profiles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a mixed-method content analysis of 373 ADHD-relevant videos (189 from YouTube, 184 from TikTok) and their top comments. It characterizes creator types, content categories, and presentation formats, and develops qualitative themes around authority building, collective quality checking, accessibility practices, and tensions around self-diagnosis. Based on these findings, the authors propose design implications for making video-sharing platforms more reliable and ADHD-friendly. The central claim is that TikTok and YouTube have distinct creator and content profiles and that video quality is maintained through visible but imperfect collective efforts by creators and viewers.

Significance. If the quantitative parts are read descriptively, this is a useful empirical contribution to the accessibility and social computing literature: it offers a rich, systematically collected corpus, detailed qualitative coding, and concrete design directions grounded in community practices. The strength of the paper is its qualitative analysis, which is extensively evidenced with quotes and descriptions of creator and viewer behavior. The paper also makes a good-faith effort to address ethical considerations, and it cites prior work on ADHD content quality appropriately. However, the quantitative cross-platform comparison in Section 4.1 is not supported by the sampling design, and the coding process would benefit from explicit reliability reporting. The qualitative themes in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 are less exposed to these issues and are the more convincing contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3.2] The unweighted chi-square comparisons in Section 4.1 are not supported by the sampling design. The final dataset is constructed by selecting, per topic category and platform, the five most-viewed videos plus five randomly sampled videos, with TikTok categories assigned from hashtags and YouTube categories assigned manually from keyword searches. Equal allocation of up to ten videos per category force-represents rare categories on each platform, the top-five component deliberately overweights already-influential videos, and the two platforms use different sampling frames. Consequently, the p-values in Section 4.1 estimate differences among the sampled strata, not differences between the broader populations of ADHD-relevant videos on YouTube and TikTok. The limitation section (5.3) acknowledges unverified commenter identities and the lack of health-expert input but does not mention sampling representativeness. Please either reframe Section 4.1 as descriptive statistics for the analytic sample and remove inferential claims, or redesign the sampling with design weights or a clearly defined target population (e.g., the five most-viewed videos per category) and restate the claims accordingly. The qualitative themes in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 are less affected by this issue.
  2. [Section 4.1] The coding process is described in detail, but no inter-rater reliability metric is reported for the 61-code video codebook or the 90-code comment codebook. The text states that two researchers independently coded 40 videos, then three researchers divided the remaining videos, with weekly checks and a fourth researcher overseeing the process. Without agreement statistics (e.g., Cohen's kappa or Krippendorff's alpha) on a subsample, the reproducibility of the codes that underlie both the quantitative counts and the thematic percentages cannot be independently assessed. Please report reliability on a subsample and describe how disagreements were resolved.
  3. [Section 4.1] Several chi-square tests in Section 4.1 involve very small observed counts, making the asymptotic approximation unreliable. For example, ADHD demographics are reported as 9.0% on YouTube versus 0.5% on TikTok, and institutions/organizations as 14.2% versus 3.2%, with only 373 videos and 252 creators in the corresponding tests. Expected cell counts below five are likely in these and other comparisons. The paper should report exact raw counts, use Fisher's exact test where appropriate, and avoid treating corrected p-values near 1.0 (e.g., p=1.00 for life beyond ADHD) as meaningful evidence of similarity. This is a statistical correctness issue in the current presentation, though it would be resolved if Section 4.1 were reframed descriptively.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2.3] The phrase 'balanced video sampling across all ADHD topics' is misleading: equal allocation per category does not balance the sample with respect to population shares, and it is better described as stratified quota sampling.
  2. [Table 1] The mapping between the 55 TikTok hashtags and the 26 YouTube categories is not fully specified; please clarify how hashtags were grouped into categories and whether the YouTube keyword categories were intended to match the TikTok hashtag groups exactly.
  3. [Figure 1] The bar charts in Figure 1 show percentages without raw counts; please add counts or sample sizes so that readers can assess the precision of each proportion.
  4. [Section 4.1.1] The creator-type chi-square test uses n=252 creators while the content and form tests use n=373 videos; please state the unit of analysis for each test explicitly.
  5. [Section 3.3.1] The number of comparisons controlled by the Bonferroni correction is not stated; please report how many tests were performed and whether the correction was applied per family or across all comparisons.
  6. [Section 4.3.1] The mean video lengths are reported with standard deviations larger than the means (e.g., 13.4 ± 22.3 minutes); consider reporting median and interquartile range as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: an observational mixed-methods study whose claims are induced from collected videos and comments, with no fitted parameters, self-cited theorems, or definitional tautologies.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical content-analysis study. The central claims—creator-type distributions, content categories, video forms, quality-control practices, and accessibility issues—are generated through thematic coding of 373 videos and their comments, not derived from an equation, model, or prior result that already contains the conclusions. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then relabeled as a prediction; the paper makes no quantitative predictions at all. The sampling design (top-five plus five-random per category) and the unweighted chi-square comparisons in Section 4.1 raise legitimate generalizability concerns, because equal per-category allocation and platform-specific search frames may not represent the underlying ADHD-video populations. That is a validity limitation, not circularity: the distributions are measured from the sample rather than assumed by the sampling procedure. The paper's own limitations section (Section 5.3) explicitly acknowledges comment-identity verification risks and the lack of health-expert input; these are honesty about evidence quality, not admissions of circular reasoning. There are no self-citations that carry a load-bearing argument, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The taxonomy extends prior work by Zhang et al. and others, but that extension is grounded in the coded data. Accordingly, no circular step can be identified and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on sampling, comment interpretation, and statistical assumptions rather than on fitted parameters or invented entities. The axioms above name the load-bearing premises that would need to hold for the reported distributions and viewer-perception themes to generalize.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hashtag and keyword searches with platform default relevance ranking return a corpus representative enough for characterizing ADHD-relevant videos.
    The whole pool is built from 55 TikTok hashtags and 26 YouTube keyword categories searched in November 2023; platform ranking algorithms can over-represent popular or trending content.
  • domain assumption A critical case sample of the five most viewed plus five random videos per category supports population-level proportions and comparisons.
    Section 3.2.3 selects this sample, then Section 4.1 reports percentages and chi-square tests as if describing ADHD videos on each platform; the sample is not a probability sample.
  • domain assumption Commenters' self-disclosed ADHD identities and experiences are treated as evidence about ADHD viewers' perceptions.
    The qualitative findings in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 rely on top-20 comments; the authors acknowledge in Section 5.3 that ADHD identities of commenters cannot be verified.
  • domain assumption Statistical tests treat sampled videos as independent observations despite clustering by creator.
    The 373 videos come from 252 creators; chi-square tests in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 ignore within-creator correlations, which can inflate reported significance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterizing Collective Efforts in Content Sharing and Quality Control for ADHD-relevant Content on Video-sharing Platforms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZBHOT2OQ

@misc{pith2026250113020,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterizing Collective Efforts in Content Sharing and Quality Control for ADHD-relevant Content on Video-sharing Platforms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZBHOT2OQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13020}
}
read the original abstract

Video-sharing platforms (VSPs) have become increasingly important for individuals with ADHD to recognize symptoms, acquire knowledge, and receive support. While videos offer rich information and high engagement, they also present unique challenges, such as information quality and accessibility issues to users with ADHD. However, little work has thoroughly examined the video content quality and accessibility issues, the impact, and the control strategies in the ADHD community. We fill this gap by systematically collecting 373 ADHD-relevant videos with comments from YouTube and TikTok and analyzing the data with a mixed method. Our study identified the characteristics of ADHD-relevant videos on VSPs (e.g., creator types, video presentation forms, quality issues) and revealed the collective efforts of creators and viewers in video quality control, such as authority building, collective quality checking, and accessibility improvement. We further derive actionable design implications for VSPs to offer more reliable and ADHD-friendly contents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13020 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Creator and video distributions on YouTube and TikTok. (a) Distributions of creator types; (b) Distributions of videos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of different videos forms except for compilation. A compilation video could consist of multiple forms above. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Eugene Agichtein, Carlos Castillo, Debora Donato, Aristides Gionis, and Gilad Mishne. 2008. Finding high-quality content in social media. InProceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and data mining. 183–194

    2008

  2. [2]

    Agnew-Blais, Guilherme V

    Jessica C. Agnew-Blais, Guilherme V. Polanczyk, Andrea Danese, Jasmin Wertz, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Louise Arseneault. 2016. Evaluation of the Persistence, Remission, and Emergence of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Young Adulthood.JAMA Psychiatry73, 7 (July 2016), 713. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry. 2016.0465

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Bath, Laura Sbaffi, and Gianluca Demartini

    Wasim Ahmed, Peter A. Bath, Laura Sbaffi, and Gianluca Demartini. 2019. Novel insights into views towards H1N1 during the 2009 Pandemic: a thematic analysis of Twitter data.Health Information & Libraries Journal36, 1 (Jan. 2019), 60–72. doi:10.1111/hir.12247

    work page doi:10.1111/hir.12247 2019

  4. [4]

    Toqa Alaa, Ahmad Mongy, Assem Bakr, Mariam Diab, and Walid Gomaa. 2024. Video Summarization Techniques: A Comprehensive Review. doi:10.48550/ ARXIV.2410.04449

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.04449 2024

  5. [5]

    Jon-Patrick Allem, Emilio Ferrara, Sree Priyanka Uppu, Tess Boley Cruz, and Jennifer B Unger. 2017. E-Cigarette Surveillance With Social Media Data: Social Bots, Emerging Topics, and Trends.JMIR Public Health and Surveillance3, 4 (Dec. 2017), e98. doi:10.2196/publichealth.8641

    work page doi:10.2196/publichealth.8641 2017

  6. [6]

    Katie Elson Anderson. 2020. Getting acquainted with social networks and apps: it is time to talk about TikTok.Library Hi Tech News37, 4 (Feb. 2020), 7–12. doi:10.1108/lhtn-01-2020-0001

    work page doi:10.1108/lhtn-01-2020-0001 2020

  7. [7]

    Griffiths, Daria J

    Cecilie Schou Andreassen, Joël Billieux, Mark D. Griffiths, Daria J. Kuss, Zsolt Demetrovics, Elvis Mazzoni, and Ståle Pallesen. 2016. The relationship between addictive use of social media and video games and symptoms of psychiatric disorders: A large-scale cross-sectional study.Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 30, 2 (March 2016), 252–262. doi:10.1037/a...

    doi:10.1037/adb0000160 2016

  8. [8]

    Attoe and Emma A

    Darby E. Attoe and Emma A. Climie. 2023. Miss. Diagnosis: A Systematic Review of ADHD in Adult Women.Journal of Attention Disorders27, 7 (March 2023), 645–657. doi:10.1177/10870547231161533

    work page doi:10.1177/10870547231161533 2023

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    Samy A Azer. 2020. Are DISCERN and JAMA suitable instruments for assessing YouTube videos on thyroid cancer? Methodological concerns.J. Cancer Educ.35, 6 (Dec. 2020), 1267–1277

    2020

  2. [10]

    C. H. Basch, P. Zybert, R. Reeves, and C. E. Basch. 2017. What do popular YouTubeTM videos say about vaccines?Child: Care, Health and Development43, 4 (Jan. 2017), 499–503. doi:10.1111/cch.12442

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Loredana Benedetto and Massimo Ingrassia. 2019. Problematic internet use and sensation seeking in adults with ADHD symptoms.Journal of Clinical & Developmental Psychology1, 1 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Gedas Bertasius, Heng Wang, and Lorenzo Torresani. 2021. Is Space-Time Atten- tion All You Need for Video Understanding? doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2102.05095

    2021 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    T C Biggs, J H Bird, P G Harries, and R J Salib. 2013. YouTube as a source of infor- mation on rhinosinusitis: the good, the bad and the ugly.The Journal of Laryngol- ogy & Otology127, 8 (July 2013), 749–754. doi:10.1017/s0022215113001473

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2022. Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing aknowingresearcher.In- ternational Journal of Transgender Health24, 1 (Oct. 2022), 1–6. doi:10.1080/ 26895269.2022.2129597

    2022

  7. [15]

    Katrin Bruchmüller, Jürgen Margraf, and Silvia Schneider. 2012. Is ADHD diag- nosed in accord with diagnostic criteria? Overdiagnosis and influence of client gender on diagnosis.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology80, 1 (2012), 128–138. doi:10.1037/a0026582

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Ya-Liang Chang, Zhe Yu Liu, and Winston Hsu. 2019. Vornet: Spatio-temporally consistent video inpainting for object removal. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops. 0–0

    2019

  9. [17]

    Munmun De Choudhury and Sushovan De. 2014. Mental health discourse on reddit: Self-disclosure, social support, and anonymity. InProceedings of the inter- national AAAI conference on web and social media, Vol. 8. 71–80

    2014

  10. [18]

    You Can’t Possibly Have ADHD

    Tessa Eagle and Kathryn E. Ringland. 2023. “You Can’t Possibly Have ADHD”: Ex- ploring Validation and Tensions around Diagnosis within Unbounded ADHD So- cial Media Communities. InProceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(<co...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Elia Gabarron, Sunday Oluwafemi Oyeyemi, and Rolf Wynn. 2021. COVID-19- related misinformation on social media: a systematic review.Bulletin of the World Health Organization99, 6 (March 2021), 455–463A. doi:10.2471/blt.20.276782

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Amy Gajaria, Emanuela Yeung, Tara Goodale, and Alice Charach. 2011. Beliefs About Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Response to Stereotypes: Youth Postings in Facebook Groups.Journal of Adolescent Health49, 1 (July 2011), 15–20. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.09.004

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press

    2018

  14. [22]

    Gilmore, J

    R. Gilmore, J. Beezhold, V. Selwyn, R. Howard, I. Bartolome, and N. Henderson

  15. [23]

    Upadhyaya

    Ylva Ginsberg, Javier Quintero, Ernie Anand, Marta Casillas, and Himanshu P. Upadhyaya. 2014. Underdiagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Adult Patients: A Review of the Literature.The Primary Care Companion For CNS Disorders(June 2014). doi:10.4088/pcc.13r01600

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Steve Graby. 2015. Neurodiversity: bridging the gap between the disabled people’s movement and the mental health system survivors’ movement? Policy Press, 231–244

    2015

  17. [25]

    Anatoliy Gruzd, Felipe Bonow Soares, and Philip Mai. 2023. Trust and safety on social media: understanding the impact of anti-social behavior and misinforma- tion on content moderation and platform governance.Social Media+ Society9, 3 (2023), 20563051231196878

    2023

  18. [26]

    Karen AE Hall, Blanca Deusdad, Manuel D’Hers Del Pozo, and Ángel Martínez- Hernáez. 2022. How did people with functional disability experience the first COVID-19 lockdown? A thematic analysis of YouTube comments.International journal of environmental research and public health...

    2022

  19. [27]

    Bing He, Yibo Hu, Yeon-Chang Lee, Soyoung Oh, Gaurav Verma, and Srijan Kumar. 2025. A survey on the role of crowds in combating online misinformation: Annotators, evaluators, and creators.ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data19, 1 (2025), 1–30

    2025

  20. [28]

    Dan Hiaeshutter-Rice, Sedona Chinn, and Kaiping Chen. 2021. Platform effects on alternative influencer content: Understanding how audiences and channels shape misinformation online.Frontiers in Political Science3 (2021), 642394

    2021

  21. [29]

    Mira Elise Glaser Holthe and Eva Langvik. 2017. The strives, struggles, and successes of women diagnosed with ADHD as adults.SAGE Open7, 1 (Jan. 2017), 215824401770179

    2017

  22. [30]

    Ziwei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Yan Xu, Nayeon Lee, Etsuko Ishii, and Pascale Fung

  23. [31]

    Lucy Jiang, Woojin Ko, Shirley Yuan, Tanisha Shende, and Shiri Azenkot. 2025. Shifting the Focus: Exploring Video Accessibility Strategies and Challenges for People with ADHD. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association...

    2025

  24. [32]

    Seok Kang, Jae-Sik Ha, and Teresa Velasco. 2016. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder on YouTube: Framing, Anchoring, and Objectification in Social Media. Community Mental Health Journal53, 4 (May 2016), 445–451. doi:10.1007/s10597- 016-0015-5

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    Luise Kazda, Katy Bell, Rae Thomas, Leah Hardiman, Iona Heath, and Alexandra Barratt. 2024. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children: more focus on care and support, less on diagnosis.bmj384 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Clive Anthony Kelly, Carolyn Kelly, and Rachael Taylor. 2024. Review of the Psychosocial Consequences of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Females.European Journal of Medical and Health Sciences6, 1 (Feb. 2024), 10–20. doi:10.24018/ejmed.2024.6.1.2033 ASSETS ’...

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Rahima Khanam and Muhammad Hussain. 2024. Yolov11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17725(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Aida Komkaite, Liga Lavrinovica, Maria Vraka, and Mikael B. Skov. 2019. Under- neath the Skin: An Analysis of YouTube Videos to Understand Insertable Device Interaction. InCHI ’19(Glasgow, Scotland Uk). doi:10.1145/3290605.3300444

    2019

  29. [37]

    Hirotaka Kosaka, Toru Fujioka, and Minyoung Jung. 2018. Symptoms in in- dividuals with adult-onset ADHD are masked during childhood.European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience269, 6 (April 2018), 753–755. doi:10.1007/s00406-018-0893-3

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    Laufer and Eric Denhoff

    Maurice W. Laufer and Eric Denhoff. 1957. Hyperkinetic behavior syndrome in children.The Journal of Pediatrics50, 4 (1957), 463–474. doi:10.1016/S0022- 3476(57)80257-1

    1957 doi

  31. [39]

    Grace J Lee, Kyra Fife, Lyndsey Fought, Tiffany Fowler, and Julie Suhr. 2023. 35 So- cial Media Use Relates to Beliefs about Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Among Emerging Adults.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society29, s1 (Nov. 2023), 642–643...

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Tell Me You Have ADHD Without Telling Me You Have ADHD

    Abigail D. Leveille. 2024. “Tell Me You Have ADHD Without Telling Me You Have ADHD”: Neurodivergent Identity Performance on TikTok.Social Media + Society10, 3 (July 2024). doi:10.1177/20563051241269260

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Haitao Li, Xu Cheng, and Jiangchuan Liu. 2014. Understanding Video Shar- ing Propagation in Social Networks: Measurement and Analysis.ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.10, 4, Article 33 (jul 2014), 20 pages. doi:10.1145/2594440

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    Heidi Oi-Yee Li, Elena Pastukhova, Olivier Brandts-Longtin, Marcus G Tan, and Mark G Kirchhof. 2022. YouTube as a source of misinformation on COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic analysis.BMJ global health7, 3 (2022), e008334

    2022

  35. [43]

    Kai Li, Cheng Zhou, Xin (Robert) Luo, Jose Benitez, and Qinyu Liao. 2022. Impact of information timeliness and richness on public engagement on so- cial media during COVID-19 pandemic: An empirical investigation based on NLP and machine learning.Decision Support Systems162 (No...

    2022

  36. [44]

    Learn the Facts about COVID-19

    Chen Ling, Krishna P. Gummadi, and Savvas Zannettou. 2023. “Learn the Facts about COVID-19”: Analyzing the Use of Warning Labels on TikTok Videos. ICWSM ’2317 (June 2023), 554–565. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22168

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2024. Visual instruc- tion tuning.NeurIPS ’24(2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Lorenzo Lorenzo-Luaces, Clare Dierckman, and Sydney Adams. 2023. Attitudes and (Mis)information About Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on TikTok: An Anal- ysis of Video Content.Journal of Medical Internet Research25 (March 2023), e45571. doi:10.2196/45571

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Xiao Ma, Jeff Hancock, and Mor Naaman. 2016. Anonymity, intimacy and self- disclosure in social media. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 3857–3869

    2016

  40. [48]

    Kapil Chalil Madathil, A Joy Rivera-Rodriguez, Joel S Greenstein, and Anand K Gramopadhye. 2014. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic re- view.Health Informatics Journal21, 3 (March 2014), 173–194. doi:10.1177/ 1460458213512220

    2014

  41. [49]

    Tell Me Something You Didn’t Know Was Neurodivergence-Related Until Recently. I’ll Start

    Victoria McDermott. 2022.“Tell Me Something You Didn’t Know Was Neurodivergence-Related Until Recently. I’ll Start”: TikTok as a Public Sphere for Destigmatizing Neurodivergence. IGI Global, 127–147. doi:10.4018/978-1-6684- 5103-8.ch007

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    Caption It in an Accessible Way That Is Also Enjoyable

    Emma J McDonnell, Tessa Eagle, Pitch Sinlapanuntakul, Soo Hyun Moon, Kathryn E. Ringland, Jon E. Froehlich, and Leah Findlater. 2024. “Caption It in an Accessible Way That Is Also Enjoyable”: Characterizing User-Driven Captioning Practices on TikTok. InProceedings of the CHI C...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Julia Morgan. 2023. Exploring women’s experiences of diagnosis of ADHD in adulthood: a qualitative study.Advances in Mental Health(Oct. 2023), 1–15. doi:10.1080/18387357.2023.2268756

    2023

  44. [52]

    Simon M Mueller, Pierre Jungo, Lucian Cajacob, Simon Schwegler, Peter Itin, and Oliver Brandt. 2019. The Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Non-Sense: Cross-Sectional Study on the Quality of Psoriasis-Related Videos on YouTube and Their Reception by Health Seekers.Journal of M...

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    Newcorn, Margaret Weiss, and Mark A

    Jeffrey H. Newcorn, Margaret Weiss, and Mark A. Stein. 2007. The Complexity of ADHD: Diagnosis and Treatment of the Adult Patient With Comorbidities. CNS Spectrums12, S12 (2007), 1–16. doi:10.1017/s1092852900026158

    2007 doi

  46. [54]

    Sanne W. C. Nikkelen, Patti M. Valkenburg, Mariette Huizinga, and Brad J. Bushman. 2014. Media use and ADHD-related behaviors in children and ado- lescents: A meta-analysis.Developmental psychology50 9 (2014), 2228–41. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15418721

    2014

  47. [55]

    Zhang, Jie Cai, Carla F

    Shuo Niu, Zhicong Lu, Amy X. Zhang, Jie Cai, Carla F. Griggio, and Hendrik Heuer. 2023. Building Credibility, Trust, and Safety on Video-Sharing Platforms. InExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI EA ’23). Asso...

    2023

  48. [56]

    McKim, and Kathleen Palm Reed

    Shuo Niu, Katherine G. McKim, and Kathleen Palm Reed. 2022. Education, Personal Experiences, and Advocacy: Examining Drug-Addiction Videos on YouTube.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, CSCW2, Article 511 (Nov. 2022), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/3555624

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    M Q Patton. 1999. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv. Res.34, 5 Pt 2 (Dec. 1999), 1189–1208

    1999

  50. [58]

    Manjiri Pawaskar, Moshe Fridman, Regina Grebla, and Manisha Madhoo. 2019. Comparison of Quality of Life, Productivity, Functioning and Self-Esteem in Adults Diagnosed With ADHD and With Symptomatic ADHD.Journal of Atten- tion Disorders24, 1 (May 2019), 136–144. doi:10.1177/108...

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    2024.Americans’ Social Media Use

    Pew Research Center. 2024.Americans’ Social Media Use. Technical Report. https: //www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/01/31/americans-social-media-use/

    2024

  52. [60]

    Rivas-Vazquez, Samantha G

    Rafael A. Rivas-Vazquez, Samantha G. Diaz, Melina M. Visser, and Ana A. Rivas- Vazquez. 2023. Adult ADHD: Underdiagnosis of a Treatable Condition.Journal of Health Service Psychology1 (Jan. 2023), 11–19. doi:10.1007/s42843-023-00077-w

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    Nader Salari, Hooman Ghasemi, Nasrin Abdoli, Adibeh Rahmani, Moham- mad Hossain Shiri, Amir Hossein Hashemian, Hakimeh Akbari, and Masoud Mohammadi. 2023. The global prevalence of ADHD in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Italian Journal of Pediat...

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    Laughing so I don’t cry

    Anastasia Schaadhardt, Yue Fu, Cory Gennari Pratt, and Wanda Pratt. 2023. “Laughing so I don’t cry”: How TikTok users employ humor and compassion to connect around psychiatric hospitalization. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hambu...

    2023

  55. [63]

    Ana Lucía Schmidt, Fabiana Zollo, Antonio Scala, Cornelia Betsch, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2018. Polarization of the vaccination debate on Facebook.Vaccine 36, 25 (June 2018), 3606–3612. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.05.040

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    Filipo Sharevski, Jennifer Vander Loop, Peter Jachim, Amy Devine, and Sanchari Das. 2024. ’Debunk-It-Yourself’: Health Professionals Strategies for Responding to Misinformation on TikTok. InProceedings of the New Security Paradigms Workshop. 35–55

    2024

  57. [65]

    Hunter Guevara, Hayley J

    Yu Shi, Lindsay R. Hunter Guevara, Hayley J. Dykhoff, Lindsey R. Sangar- alingham, Sean Phelan, Michael J. Zaccariello, and David O. Warner. 2021. Racial Disparities in Diagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in a US National Birth Cohort.JAMA Network Open4, 3 (M...

    2021

  58. [66]

    Shoemaker, Michael S

    Sarah J. Shoemaker, Michael S. Wolf, and Cindy Brach. 2014. Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): A new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Education and Counseling96, 3 (Sept. ...

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    William M. Silberg. 1997. Assessing, Controlling, and Assuring the Quality of Medical Information on the Internet: Caveant Lector et Viewor—Let the Reader and Viewer Beware.JAMA277, 15 (April 1997), 1244. doi:10.1001/jama.1997. 03540390074039

    1997 doi

  60. [68]

    Viktória Simon, Pál Czobor, Sára Bálint, Ágnes Mészáros, and István Bitter. 2009. Prevalence and correlates of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: meta- analysis.The British Journal of Psychiatry194, 3 (2009), 204–211. doi:10.1192/bjp. bp.107.048827

    2009 doi

  61. [69]

    Hey, Can You Add Captions?

    Ellen Simpson, Samantha Dalal, and Bryan Semaan. 2023. "Hey, Can You Add Captions?": The Critical Infrastructuring Practices of Neurodiverse People on TikTok.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW1, Article 57 (apr 2023), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3579490

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    Katta Spiel, Eva Hornecker, Rua Mae Williams, and Judith Good. 2022. ADHD and Technology Research – Investigated by Neurodivergent Readers.CHI ’22 547 (April 2022), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517592

    2022

  63. [71]

    Isabella Starvaggi, Clare Dierckman, and Lorenzo Lorenzo-Luaces. 2024. Mental health misinformation on social media: Review and future directions.Current Opinion in Psychology56 (April 2024), 101738. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101738

    2024

  64. [72]

    Paul Stenner, Lindsay O’Dell, and Alison Davies. 2019. Adult women and ADHD: On the temporal dimensions of ADHD identities.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour49, 2 (2019), 179–197

    2019

  65. [73]

    Victor Suarez-Lledo and Javier Alvarez-Galvez. 2021. Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review.Journal of Medical Internet Research23, 1 (Jan. 2021), e17187. doi:10.2196/17187

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    Christopher J Thang, David Garate, Joseph Thang, Jules B Lipoff, and John S Barbieri. 2023. Short-Form Medical Media: A Multi-Platform Analysis of Acne Treatment Information in TikTok Videos, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts. JMIR Dermatology6 (Aug. 2023), e48140. doi:10.2196/48140

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    Pratikshya Thapa, Ashish Thapa, Nabina Khadka, Ruchi Bhattarai, Samir Jha, Amit Khanal, and Bibhusan Basnet. 2018. YouTube lens to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A Social Media Analysis.BMC Research Notes11, 1 (2018). doi:10.1186/s13104-018-3962-9

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    My ADHD Hellbrain

    Mike Thelwall, Meiko Makita, Amalia Mas-Bleda, and Emma Stuart. 2020. “My ADHD Hellbrain”: A Twitter Data Science Perspective on a Behavioural Disorder. Journal of Data and Information Science6, 1 (Dec. 2020), 13–34. doi:10.2478/jdis- ADHD Content Characteristics & Quality on ...

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    Chau Tong, Drew Margolin, Rumi Chunara, Jeff Niederdeppe, Teairah Taylor, Natalie Dunbar, and Andy J King. 2022. Search Term Identification Methods for Computational Health Communication: Word Embedding and Network Approach for Health Content on YouTube.JMIR Medical Informatic...

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    Russell Ramsay

    Roberta Waite and J. Russell Ramsay. 2009. Cultural Proficiency: A Hispanic Woman With ADHD—A Case Example.Journal of Attention Disorders13, 4 (May 2009), 424–432. doi:10.1177/1087054709332393

    2009 doi

  71. [79]

    Ringland

    Yihe Wang and Kathryn E. Ringland. 2023. Weaving Autistic Voices on TikTok: Utilizing Co-Hashtag Networks for Netnography. InCSCW ’23 Companion. doi:10. 1145/3584931.3606995

    2023

  72. [80]

    Watters, D

    C. Watters, D. Adamis, F. McNicholas, and B. Gavin. 2017. The impact of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adulthood: a qualitative study.Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine35, 3 (June 2017), 173–179. doi:10.1017/ipm. 2017.21

    2017 doi

  73. [81]

    Anna Maria Werling, Susanne Walitza, and Renate Drechsler. 2021. Impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on screen media use in patients referred for ADHD to child and adolescent psychiatry: an introduction to problematic use of the internet in ADHD and results of a survey.Journal of ...

    2021 doi

  74. [82]

    Timothy E Wilens and Thomas J Spencer. 2010. Understanding attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder from childhood to adulthood.Postgrad. Med.122, 5 (Sept. 2010), 97–109

    2010

  75. [83]

    Tappin, Adam J

    Chloe Wittenberg, Ben M. Tappin, Adam J. Berinsky, and David G. Rand. 2021. The (minimal) persuasive advantage of political video over text.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, 47 (Nov. 2021). doi:10.1073/pnas.2114388118

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    Yi Xu, Jiahe Wang, and Mengyuan Ma. 2023. Adapting to lockdown: Explor- ing stress coping strategies on short video social media during the COVID-19 pandemic.Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag.16 (Dec. 2023), 5273–5287

    2023

  77. [85]

    Cappella

    Qinghua Yang, Angeline Sangalang, Molly Rooney, Erin Maloney, Sherry Emery, and Joseph N. Cappella. 2018. How Is Marijuana Vaping Portrayed on YouTube? Content, Features, Popularity and Retransmission of Vaping Marijuana YouTube Videos.Journal of Health Communication23, 4 (Mar...

    2018

  78. [86]

    Anthony Yeung, Enoch Ng, and Elia Abi-Jaoude. 2022. TikTok and attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A cross-sectional study of social media content quality.The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry67, 12 (2022), 899–906. doi:10.1177/ 07067437221082854

    2022

  79. [87]

    Ho Young Yoon, Kyung Han You, Jung Hye Kwon, Jung Sun Kim, Sun Young Rha, Yoon Jung Chang, and Sang-Cheol Lee. 2022. Understanding the social mechanism of cancer misinformation spread on YouTube and lessons learned: infodemiological study.Journal of medical Internet research24...

    2022

  80. [88]

    Susan Young, Nicoletta Adamo, Bryndís Björk Ásgeirsdóttir, Polly Branney, Michelle Beckett, William Colley, Sally Cubbin, Quinton Deeley, Emad Farrag, Gisli Gudjonsson, Peter Hill, Jack Hollingdale, Ozge Kilic, Tony Lloyd, Peter Ma- son, Eleni Paliokosta, Sri Perecherla, Jane ...

    2020

  81. [89]

    Hamza Yousuf, Sander van der Linden, Luke Bredius, GA Ted van Essen, Govert Sweep, Zohar Preminger, Eric van Gorp, Erik Scherder, Jagat Narula, and Leonard Hofstra. 2021. A media intervention applying debunking versus non-debunking content to combat vaccine misinformation in e...

    2021

  82. [90]

    YouTube. n.d.. Navigating YouTube Search – How YouTube Works. https://www. youtube.com/intl/en_be/howyoutubeworks/product-features/search/. https: //www.youtube.com/intl/en_be/howyoutubeworks/product-features/search/ Ac- cessed: 2025-06-25

    2025

  83. [91]

    Marco Zenone, Nikki Ow, and Skye Barbic. 2021. TikTok and public health: a proposed research agenda.BMJ Global Health6, 11 (Nov. 2021), e007648. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007648

    2021 doi

  84. [92]

    Alice Qian Zhang, Ashlee Milton, and Stevie Chancellor. 2023. #Pragmatic or #Clinical: Analyzing TikTok Mental Health Videos. InCompanion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Comput- ing(Minneapolis, MN, USA)(CSCW ’23 Companion)....

    2023

  85. [93]

    Timmons, Wensong Wu, and Stacy L

    Xin Zhao, Timothy Hayes, Adela C. Timmons, Wensong Wu, and Stacy L. Frazier

  86. [94]

    Ziyuan Zhao, Huiying Zhu, Zehao Xue, Zhao Liu, Jing Tian, Matthew Chin Heng Chua, and Maofu Liu. 2019. An image-text consistency driven multimodal senti- ment analysis approach for social media.Information Processing & Management 56, 6 (2019), 102097

    2019

  87. [96]

    doi:10.1007/s10488-023-01259-w

    Unpacking Inequities in ADHD Diagnosis: Examining Individual-Level Race/Ethnicity and State-Level Online Information-Seeking Patterns.Admin- istration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research50, 4 (March 2023), 576–590. doi:10.1007/s10488-023-01259-w

    2023 doi

  88. [2022]

    doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.1463

    Is TikTok increasing the number of self-diagnoses of ADHD in young people?European Psychiatry65, S1 (2022). doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.1463

    2022

  89. [2023]

    InEMNLP ’23

    Towards Mitigating LLM Hallucination via Self Reflection. InEMNLP ’23. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.123

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.