Back

Exploring Attitudes of Primary Caregivers Towards Pediatric Tissue-Based Research using Large Language Models: Insights from Rural and Urban Community Calls and Surveys

Chotani, A.; Moradinasab, N.; Sullivan, B. H.; Griffin-Scudari, L.; Cohen, J.; Rhoads, F.; Meyer, C.; Setiady, I.; Weinhouse, A.; Dumont, M.; Greene, A. R.; Thiagarajah, J. R.; Silvester, J.; Glover, S. C.; Syed, S.

2026-07-13 pediatrics
10.64898/2026.07.08.26357557 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objectives: Explore the perspectives of primary caregivers towards pediatric tissue-based research participation. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Two academic pediatric gastroenterology sites in the United States, including one serving a largely rural referral population and one urban clinic population. Participants: Primary caregivers of children who underwent endoscopy between 2017-2018 at UVA or were seen in the clinic setting between 2024-2025 at Tulane and referred by their child's gastroenterologist to complete an electronic survey. Measures and Analysis: Primary caregiver attitudes, motivations, and concerns toward pediatric tissue-based research were explored using descriptive-focused coding in NVivo and a large language model (LLM) processing pipeline based on OpenAI's GPT-4 for thematic, emotional, and sentiment analyses. Results: Data were analyzed from 92 primary caregivers. Overall, respondents were amenable to having their children provide specimens for research. Primary motivations included a desire to help others or advance science, and perceived medical benefits for their child so long as specimen collection did not cause additional distress. Discomfort with participation was often linked to prior traumatic clinical experiences, concerns about additional biopsies causing unnecessary discomfort, or privacy issues. A desire to help others and potentially their own child was the strongest motivator for participation, while scheduling constraints and perceived risks to the child's health were the main barriers. Conclusions: At both sites, primary caregivers expressed strong willingness to participate in pediatric research. Primary concerns included perceived invasiveness of biospecimen collection and potential for additional discomfort. Limitations of the study included the unstructured nature of the data making the analysis and interpretation challenging. Strengths included two demographically diverse sites, intentional enrollment of primary caregivers of children both with and without invasive diagnostic testing, and use of LLM based analyses.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Journal of Pediatrics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.0%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 17%
11.3%
3
BMJ Paediatrics Open
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.1%
4
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.4%
5
Gut
40 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.2%
6
Frontiers in Pediatrics
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.2%
7
Vaccine
203 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.3%
50% of probability mass above
8
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.3%
9
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.9%
10
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.5%
11
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
12
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.2%
13
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
15
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
142 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
16
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.2%
17
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
18
Children
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
19
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
20
Genetics in Medicine
78 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
21
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
22
Archives of Disease in Childhood
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
23
Clinical and Translational Science
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
24
Preventive Medicine Reports
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
25
Public Health Nutrition
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
26
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
27
Annals of Internal Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
28
Pediatrics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
29
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
30
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%