ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
A discovery and replication study of dyslexia does not reveal reproducible gray matter volume differences.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Two decades of research have provided evidence for gray matter volume (GMV) differences in developmental dyslexia (or reading disability, RD) in the left perisylvian cortex. However, there are concerns about result inconsistencies, likely attributable to small sample sizes, lenient statistical thresholds, and insufficient accounting for demographic variables and global GMV (Ramus et al., 2018). To address these concerns, we conducted a Discovery and Replication Study (N=262) using data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study. We found GMV differences between the RD and Control Groups did not replicate across the Discovery and Replication Studies using voxel-based morphometry (VBM) in Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM), and that a more conservative threshold yielded far fewer results. We then conducted Reproducibility Studies and first found that when using surface-based morphometry in FreeSurfer instead of VBM, the Discovery and the Replication Study results again failed to converge. Second, we combined all groups in a factorial VBM/SPM analysis and the interaction analysis provided quantitative confirmation for diverging between-group difference results across the two studies. Third, we tested for the role of covariates of no interest and found that when total GMV is not controlled for, this divergence dissipates and group differences in RD (main effect of Reading Ability) are amplified. In conclusion, replication of GMV differences in RD is low, even when using large, well-matched groups, and analyses approaches play a modulating role. As such, results from prior studies using lenient statistical thresholds and not accounting for total GMV should therefore be viewed with caution.
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.