Retinal and Choroidal Microvasculature at Different Myopia Severities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topic: This study systematically evaluates changes in retinal and choroidal microvasculature with increasing myopia severity. Clinical Relevance: Conflicting results in reported studies on the changes in retinal and choroidal microvasculature with increasing myopia severity require comprehensive analysis to guide patient management. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were thoroughly searched for studies published before May 8, 2025 on retinal or choroidal changes across different myopia severities. Included were studies with cross-sectional or prospective case-control and cohort designs that reported outcomes of foveal avascular zone (FAZ) area and vessel densities (VD) in the retina and choroid. The risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality tools. Funnel plot with Egger test assessed potential publication bias. Meta-regressions were conducted to identify potential moderators in subgroup meta-analyses with high heterogeneity. The protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42023402550. Results: ≤ 0.033). No significant differences were observed in choriocapillaris VD or flow area. Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed significantly enlarged FAZ areas and reduced VD in the macular and peripapillary regions with increasing myopia, especially in HM. These findings enhance the understanding of myopia-related fundus microvascular changes, guiding the clinical management and screening of patients with HM.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it