ArticleeLife2025
Reevaluating the neural noise in dyslexia using biomarkers from electroencephalography and high-resolution magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
Article in eLife, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Aperiodic Neural Activity in Clinical Investigations.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Neural Cell Models of Specific Reading Disabilities: Identification of Cellular and Transcriptome Alterations.Genes, brain, and behavior · 2026Article
- Functional Networks in Developmental Dyslexia: Auditory Discrimination of Words and Pseudowords.NeuroSci · 2026Article
- Electroencephalography Signatures Associated with Developmental Dyslexia Identified Using Principal Component Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Emotional neglect in childhood modulates aperiodic offset in the left pars orbitalis in adulthood.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The neural noise hypothesis of dyslexia posits an imbalance between excitatory and inhibitory (E/I) brain activity as an underlying mechanism of reading difficulties. This study provides the first direct test of this hypothesis using both electroencephalography (EEG) power spectrum measures in 120 Polish adolescents and young adults (60 with dyslexia, 60 controls) and glutamate (Glu) and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) concentrations from magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) at 7T MRI scanner in half of the sample. Our results, supported by Bayesian statistics, show no evidence of E/I balance differences between groups, challenging the hypothesis that cortical hyperexcitability underlies dyslexia. These findings suggest that alternative mechanisms must be explored and highlight the need for further research into the E/I balance and its role in neurodevelopmental disorders.
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.