Clinical Features of Fundus Tessellation and Its Relationship with Myopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aims to assess the existing literature on fundus tessellation (FT), focusing on its prevalence, associated factors, distribution, and progression. METHODS: Systemic methods were employed to search and gather published literature on FT from databases such as the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), Web of Science (WOS), and Elsevier on July 1, 2023. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare tessellated and normal fundus with respect to age, gender, axial length, and spherical equivalent. RESULTS: The systematic review included 23 articles, encompassing a total of 3053 eyes in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of FT varied from 43.00 to 94.35%. The severity of FT was significantly associated with older age, male sex, lower body weight index, longer axial length, larger peripapillary atrophy, thinner choroid, thinner sclera, and larger corneal radius of curvature, suggesting a potential progression pattern. Notably, FT was observed predominantly in the macular and peripapillary regions. The meta-analysis revealed that tessellated fundus tended to be associated with older age (mean difference [MD] 4.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-7.80, P < 0.01), longer axial length (MD 0.86, 95% CI 0.70-1.02, P < 0.01), and a lower spherical equivalent (MD - 1.16, 95% CI - 1.68 to 0.65, P < 0.01) compared to normal fundus. However, there was no significant difference in the proportion of males between individuals with tessellated and normal fundus (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% CI 0.89-1.42, P = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this systematic review and meta-analysis shed light on the prevalence, characteristics, and factors associated with FT, offering valuable insights for clinicians and researchers in the field of ophthalmology. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023442486).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".