RETRACTED: Association of Statin Use and Noninfectious Uveitis
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retraction Notice This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier policy on article withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and the authors. Retraction notice to Association of Statin Use and Noninfectious Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Tao BK, Butt FR, Dhivagaran T, Mihalache A, Huang RS, Xie JS, Popovic MM, Kaplan AJ. Ophthalmology Retina. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.oret.2025.10.009 The editors and authors wish to note that this article is being retracted from the published record. Following post-publication review, data extraction errors were identified in the primary analysis. Specifically, event counts attributed to Sobrin et al. (1) were erroneously extracted from baseline prevalence figures in the original study rather than from the incident uveitis event counts reported in the results - an error arising from a misplaced decimal point that produced counts inflated by approximately two orders of magnitude (92,525 and 25,167, versus the correct values of 541 and 103, respectively). An additional denominator error was identified in the data extracted from Borkar et al. (2), and study labels were found to be systematically mislabeled in Figures 2 and 4 and in corresponding Results and Discussion text. Upon re-analysis using corrected data, the primary conclusion of the article - that oral statin use was significantly associated with a lower occurrence of noninfectious uveitis - is no longer supported. The corrected primary analysis using unadjusted crude data does not reach statistical significance (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.68-1.21; P = 0.51). Corrected subgroup and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses likewise do not yield statistically significant findings. Following review of the corrected analyses, the editors have determined that the article's primary findings are no longer supportable and that the work is not suitable for continued publication. The authors conducted an internal investigation and affirmed that these errors arose from a traceable and inadvertent failure of the data extraction consensus process and were not the result of any intentional misconduct or data fabrication. Upon identification of these honest errors, all authors were in full agreement of retraction to preserve the veracity of the literature. The authors came forward to acknowledge the errors fully and have cooperated transparently throughout the post-publication review process. The authors sincerely regret and apologize for this unintended outcome. This notice is issued as a retraction of the original article. (1) Sobrin L, Yu Y, Han S, et al. Decreased risk of non-infectious anterior uveitis with statin therapy in a large healthcare claims database. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. 2021;259(9):2783-2793. (2) Borkar DS, Tham VM, Shen E, et al. Association Between Statin Use and Uveitis: Results From the Pacific Ocular Inflammation Study. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2026/03/31 2015;159(4):707-713.e2.
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 | 0.028 | 0.255 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.191 | 0.086 |
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".