Morphological Changes of the Retina in Alcohol Use Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies Using Optical Coherence Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of the Review: Chronic alcohol use is associated with various structural and functional changes in the brain. Retinal morphology assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT) non-invasively detects alcohol related damage to the brain and can be a disease marker. Collection and Analysis of Data: A systematic review of studies comparing retinal morphology using OCT, between alcohol use disorder (AUD) patients and healthy controls (HC) from PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases was performed (on 15/April/2025). Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for the thickness of retinal parameters, at both disc and macula: Retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL), ganglion cell layer (GCL), inner plexiform layer (IPL), ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL), choroid thickness (CT), macular thickness (MT) and macular volume (MV). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for risk of bias (RoB) assessment. Publication bias, sensitivity analysis and certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using Doi plots, the leave-one-out method and the GRADE approach, respectively. Results: Of the 2,416 records screened, eight studies ( n = AUD = 6,276 eyes; HC = 2,695 eyes) were included in meta-analyses. They revealed significant thinning of the total (pooled SMD = −0.41; 95% CI = −0.68, −0.14; I 2 = 75%; k = 6) and nasal (pooled SMD = −0.36; 95% CI = −0.58, −0.13; I 2 = 56%; k = 6) peripapillary RNFL in AUD patients. Significantly lower average MT (pooled SMD = −0.62; 95% CI = −0.95, −0.29; I 2 = 50%; k = 3) and macular GCIPL thickness (pooled SMD = −0.19; 95% CI = −0.33, −0.06; I 2 = 67%; k = 3) were shown. CoE was ‘moderate’ for total peripapillary RNFL thinning, but was ‘very low’ for other outcomes, owing to heterogeneity and publication bias. RoB assessment showed one study with unsatisfactory quality. Conclusions: Evidence for thinning of retinal layers, especially the peripapillary RNFL, as AUD disease-markers is promising, but preliminary. Our results align with the hypothesis that chronic alcohol consumption induces neurodegenerative changes in the retina and, therefore, the brain.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".