MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413116105 · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2025.07.038

Baseline OCT Biomarkers Associated with Visual Acuity in Diabetic Macular Edema

2025· article· en· W4413116105 on OpenAlexaff
Keean Nanji, Justin Grad, Amin Hatamnejad, Abdullah El‐Sayes, Andrew Mihalache, Mohamed Gemae, Ryan S. Huang, Mark H. Phillips, Peter K. Kaiser, Marion R. Munk, Sunir J Garg, David Sarraf, Srinivas Sadda, Samantha Fraser‐Bell, Dena Zeraatkar, Jinhui Ma, Enrico Borrelli, David Steel, Sobha Sivaprasad, Charles C. Wykoff, Varun Chaudhary

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsImpactQueen's UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersJohnson and JohnsonAmerican Academy of OphthalmologyBoehringer Ingelheim
KeywordsMedicineOphthalmologyVisual acuityOptical coherence tomographyDiabetic retinopathyBiomarkerMacular edemaDiabetic macular edemaMeta-analysisRetinalMEDLINEInternal medicineDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TOPIC: To determine effect estimates and certainty of evidence for the associations between baseline OCT biomarkers and (1) patient visual acuity (VA) and (2) changes in VA from baseline to 6, 12, and 24 months after initiation of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, steroid, or laser treatment for diabetic macular edema. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the prognostic value conferred by biomarkers can help predict disease activity and inform treatment decisions. METHODS: This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (identifier, CRD42023487798). Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines informed certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-eight reports from 27 studies evaluating 75 biomarkers were included. No biomarker with at least a moderate certainty was associated with improved VA or change in VA. Results are reported in Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. Five biomarkers were associated with reduced VA at 2 or more time points with moderate certainty: (1) hyperreflective retinal foci (HRF; 6 months, -6.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), -10.4 to -2.6]; 12 months, -7.3 [95% CI, -11.6 to -3.0], (2) hyperreflective choroidal foci (HCF; 6 months, -7.3 [95% CI, -13.3 to -1.3]; 12 months, -7.5 [95% CI, -11.9 to -3.0], (3) disorganization of retinal inner layers (DRIL; 6 months, -6.0 [95% CI, -11.7 to -0.3]; 12 months, -7.3 [95% CI, -12.8 to -1.7], (4) disrupted ellipsoid zone (EZ) or external limiting membrane (ELM; 6 months, -9.7 [95% CI, -15.4 to -3.9]; 12 months, -7.5 [95% CI, -11.9 to -3.0]; 12 months isolated EZ disruption, -5.4; [95% CI, -9.2 to -1.6] ; 24 months, -9.0 [95% CI, -14.3 to -3.6], and (5) disrupted cone outer segment termination (COST) line (12 months, -8.5 [95% CI, -13.5 to -3.5]; 24 months, -8.8 [95% CI, -14.0 to -3.6]. DISCUSSION: Baseline HRF, HCF, DRIL, disrupted EZ or ELM, and disrupted COST lines were associated with worse VA at 2 or more time points with moderate certainty of evidence. Greater standardization in biomarker classification and better control of confounding variables are needed. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmologySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207