Research · Evidence base
We read 697 studies before writing a single line of this product.
Two things matter to a skeptical late-dx ADHD professional reading this page: the literature, and the corpus. The corpus tells us what the audience actually sounds like. The literature tells us what works. We did both before writing a prompt.
N° 08· What we read
We read 697 studies before writing a single line of this product.
Between April 2025 and April 2026 we collected 1,802 publicly accessible posts and comments from r/ADHD, r/adhdwomen, r/ADHDmemes, and LinkedIn — about the freeze, the masking, the diagnosis, the tools. 547 of them matched at least one of eight pre-registered themes.
The strongest cross-platform pattern: the “I keep re-explaining my ADHD context to ChatGPT” conversation is a LinkedIn one (φ = 0.40, p < 1e-22, Bonferroni-corrected) — exactly where mid-career professionals talk about how they actually work. That’s where this product is built for.
547 theme-matched posts · Top 30 bigrams + top 50 unigrams
Pulled from research, not from guesses. Full methodology, statistics, and quote bank →
Pre-launch
The deeper methodology — full citation list, pre-registered statistical analysis (chi-square + Cramér’s V cross-platform, Kruskal-Wallis + Dunn engagement-by-theme, Fisher’s exact theme co-occurrence with Bonferroni-correction), and the public-facing quote bank — ships with the May 18 launch at /research/evidence-base.
The corpus stats above are the public-ready slice: 547 theme-matched posts from r/ADHD, r/adhdwomen, r/ADHDmemes, and LinkedIn between April 2025 and April 2026. The strongest cross-platform pattern: the “I keep re-explaining my ADHD context to ChatGPT” conversation is statistically a LinkedIn one (φ = 0.40, p < 1e-22, Bonferroni-corrected).
Questions about the methodology before launch? Email me directly — I read everything.