PREreview estructurada del Assessing AI-Generated Autism Information for Healthcare Use: A Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Geographic Evaluation of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction clearly explains that the objective is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the usefulness of AI-generated information for healthcare providers and families across different regions and languages, thereby offering practical recommendations for improving autism care

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

The methods are highly appropriate because they employ a cross-linguistic (Turkish/English) and cross-geographic design, directly addressing objective variability in AI performance across contexts. They use a standardized set of 44 caregiver-focused questions to ensure consistent comparative input across ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot. The assessment relies on validated, specific measurement tools (3Cs framework for accuracy, FKGL for readability, and PEMAT-P for actionability) to evaluate information quality systematically.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

The presented comprehensive tables provided detailed descriptive statistics (Means, SDs) for all combinations of the three LLMs, two languages, and three locations for accuracy, readability, actionability, and reference quality. Comparative figures (Figures 1–6) visually summarize the critical main effects and interaction effects (e.g., LLM × Location/Language) identified by the statistical analysis (ANOVA/MLM) for accuracy, readability, and actionability. This presentation effectively communicates the nuanced performance differences across the tools and contexts.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

Categorizing Interpretations by Tool Performance: The response explicitly breaks down the authors' explanations of findings based on the performance of each AI tool (ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot), highlighting the nuance in interpretation. For example, the authors clarify the trade-off between ChatGPT's high accuracy and its lack of references, and explain that Gemini's superior actionability in Turkish was a "surprising result" requiring further investigation. Focusing on Systemic Gaps: The response highlights the authors' discussion of pervasive issues across all models, specifically, the failure of all LLMs to meet readability standards (6th–8th grade level) and their reliance on medicalized terminology over neurodiversity-affirming language. Providing Structured Next Steps (Implications and Research): The discussion of future steps is highly clear because the authors separated them into two distinct, actionable categories (Implications for Practice(Operational Next Steps) and Recommendations for Future Research (Academic Next Steps))

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

Yes, the preprint is likely to advance academic knowledge because it systematically addresses a significant gap regarding the quality, readability, and reliability of autism information provided by AI tools, a domain where research is currently sparse.

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

for formal submission to a publisher or broader audience, the preprint would benefit from language editing to ensure maximum academic conciseness and flow, despite the fact that the core findings are already clearly and rigorously presented

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, it’s of high quality

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

1. Language Editing: The preprint requires professional refinement to improve grammatical consistency, clarify awkward phrasing, and ensure optimal academic conciseness and flow [Conversation History]. 2. Peer Review and Validation: For attention from a publisher or a broader audience seeking validated results, the preprint needs to successfully complete the peer review process, as it is currently the "Not peer-reviewed version" of the research output

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.