ArticleScientific reports2024
A machine learning-based classification model to support university students with dyslexia with personalized tools and strategies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- NEUROCOG-DysNet: a multi-scale cognitive feature engineering framework with stacking ensemble for improved dyslexia screening.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- A Statistical Learning-Based Clustering Model With Features Selection to Identify Dyslexia in School-Aged Children.Dyslexia (Chichester, England) · 2025Article
- Improving Reading and Eye Movement Control in Readers with Oculomotor and Visuo-Attentional Deficits.Journal of eye movement research · 2025Article
- Lightweight hybrid transformers-based dyslexia detection using cross-modality data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Neural Patterns of Social Pain in the Brain-Wide Representations Across Social Contexts.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Deep learning-driven dyslexia detection model using multi-modality data.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Dyslexia is a specific learning disorder that causes issues related to reading, which affects around 10% of the worldwide population. This can compromise comprehension and memorization skills, and result in anxiety and lack of self-esteem, if no support is provided. Moreover, this support should be highly personalized, to be actually helpful. In this paper, a model to classify the most useful methodologies to support students with dyslexia has been created, with a focus on university alumni. The prediction algorithm is based on supervised machine learning techniques; starting from the issues that dyslexic students experience during their career, it is capable of suggesting customized support digital tools and learning strategies for each of them. The algorithm was trained and tested on data acquired through a self-evaluation questionnaire, which was designed and then spread to more than 1200 university students. It allowed 17 useful tools and 22 useful strategies to be detected. The results of the testing showed an average prediction accuracy higher than 90%, which rises to 94% by renouncing to guess the less-predictable 8 tools/strategies. In the light of this, it is possible to state that the implemented algorithm can achieve the set goal and, thus, reduce the gap between dyslexic and non-dyslexic students. This achievement paves the way for a new modality of facing the problem of dyslexia by university institutions, which aims at modifying teaching activities toward students' needs, instead of simply reducing their study load or duties. This complies with the definition and the aims of inclusivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.