ArticleBMC psychology2025
Exploring AI-assisted design of executive function rehabilitation programs for individuals with ADHD: a mixed-methods evaluation of prompts and chatgpt outputs.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital, Media, and Information Literacies and the Well-Being of Neurotypical and Neurodivergent Children: A Synthetic Knowledge Synthesis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Generative AI and Large Language Models in Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- How digital medicine redefines the landscape of care: Ethical and legal consequences in the case of psychiatry.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT gain traction in clinical contexts, their role in neurorehabilitation, particularly in addressing executive function impairments associated with ADHD, remains underexplored. This study examines whether generative AI can meaningfully support clinicians in designing individualized cognitive rehabilitation plans, not as a replacement but as a complementary aid.
methodsThe research consisted of three separate studies, each addressing distinct stages of the investigation. First, expert-driven prompts were developed based on literature and clinical insights to guide ChatGPT in generating rehabilitation plans for three hypothetical profiles of individuals with ADHD (adolescents, adults, and older adults). In Study 2, the outputs were analyzed using a semi-systematic qualitative framework (ISAAC), assessing structure, coherence, and adaptability across developmental stages. Study 3 involved an external panel of 27 neuropsychologists and cognitive rehabilitation specialists (M = 6; F = 21; mean age = 46.5, SD = 15) who rated each plan's theoretical validity, clinical relevance, and feasibility.
resultsExperts in Study 3 generally responded positively to the theoretical consistency of the plans, especially those for adolescents and adults, recognizing alignment with established models of executive function rehabilitation. Many professionals expressed openness to using AI as a support tool in practice. However, feasibility emerged as a key limitation, with concerns over a lack of personalization, unrealistic resource assumptions, and unvalidated techniques, particularly in adult and older adult profiles. These findings align with earlier studies in occupational therapy and clinical decision-making, which also identified challenges in real-world applicability.
conclusionWhile clinical experts express cautious optimism about AI-assisted rehabilitation planning, further development is necessary to enhance accuracy, personalization, and feasibility for the safe integration of AI into clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.