ArticleeLife2026
Theta beta ratio in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder using a multiverse analysis.
Article in eLife, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurophysiological Characterization of ADHD in Children Using EEG Signals: A Machine Learning Approach to Executive Function Networks.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- State sensitivity and five-year longitudinal stability of resting-state EEG biomarker candidates in healthy adults.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects 5-7% of children worldwide, yet diagnosis continues to rely on clinical-behavioral assessments. The theta/beta ratio (TBR) derived from electroencephalography (EEG) has long been proposed as a complementary neurobiological marker of ADHD based on reports of elevated TBR in affected children. However, accumulating evidence has raised concerns about the robustness and generalizability of these findings, pointing to a strong sensitivity to methodological choices. Here, we used multiverse analyses to systematically quantify how researcher degrees of freedom shape conclusions about associations between TBR and ADHD. Across two large, independent datasets (Healthy brain network: N=1499; validation sample: N=381), we evaluated 576 theoretically plausible analytical specifications, varying recording conditions, reference scheme, frequency band definitions, treatment of aperiodic (1/f) activity, regions of interest, sample inclusion criteria, and covariate specifications. Across the multiverse, we found that group differences in TBR were highly contingent on analytical choices, with no evidence for robust main effects of diagnosis, indicating no reliable differences between healthy controls, ADHD-inattentive, and ADHD-combined subtypes. Instead, significant effects emerged primarily as interactions with age and individual alpha frequency (IAF), particularly when TBR was derived from aperiodic-uncorrected power or from the aperiodic signal itself. These interaction patterns replicated across both independent samples and were observed using both categorical and dimensional definitions of ADHD. Together, these findings indicate that previously reported TBR effects are largely driven by variability in aperiodic activity and IAF rather than genuine differences in oscillatory theta-beta dynamics. Our results challenge the interpretation of TBR as a reliable standalone biomarker for ADHD and underscore the importance of multiverse approaches for evaluating candidate neurobiological markers in heterogeneous clinical populations.
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.