Association between Retinal Vascular Geometric Changes and Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose Previous studies have explored the association between retinal vascular changes and cognitive impairment.The retinal vasculature shares some characteristics with the cerebral vasculature, and quantitative changes in it could indicate cognitive impairment.Hence, a comprehensive meta-analysis was performed to clarify the potential relationship between retinal vascular geometric changes and cognitive impairment.Methods Relevant databases were scrupulously and systematically searched for retinal vascular geometric changes including caliber, tortuosity, and fractal dimension (FD), and for cognitive impairment.The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies.RevMan was used to perform the meta-analysis and detect publication bias.Sensitivity analyses were also performed. ResultsFive studies that involved 2,343 subjects were finally included in the meta-analysis.The results showed that there was no significant association between central retinal artery equivalents (Z=1.17) or central retinal venular equivalents (Z=1.74) and cognitive impairment (both p>0.05).Similarly, no significant difference was detected in retinal arteriolar tortuosity (Z=0.91) and venular tortuosity (Z=1.31)(both p>0.05).However, the retinal arteriolar FD (mean difference: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.05, -0.01) and venular FD (mean difference: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.05, -0.02) were associated with cognitive impairment.Conclusions A smaller retinal microvascular FD might be associated with cognitive impairment.Further large-sample and well-controlled original studies are required to confirm the present findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".