ArticleNPJ science of learning2026
Uncovering subgroup heterogeneity in dyslexia intervention outcomes using explainable machine learning.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identifying heterogeneity within literacy intervention outcomes can inform more targeted strategies for dyslexia remediation. Based on prior work that used machine learning to predict literacy intervention responders and non-responders at baseline, this study uncovered 2 subgroups of responders and 4 subgroups of non-responders based on feature importance profiles of 132 students who were diagnosed with dyslexia. Their average age was 8.2 years at baseline (98.08 months). They received literacy intervention for an average of 33.62 months. Intervention subgroup membership predicted long-term literacy development of a subsample of 41 students 68.2 months post intervention. The baseline scores, top predictors and long-term literacy outcomes were profiled for each subgroup. 'High Baseline Responders' and 'Low Baseline Responders' characterized the two responder subgroups. 'Total Regression Non-Responders', 'Self-Taught Non-Responders', 'Phonics-Receptive Non-Responders' and 'Lowest Baseline Non-Responders' characterized the four non-responder subgroups. Overall, our research found that clustering could identify subgroup profiles and demonstrates the predictive potential of longitudinal literacy development.
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.