ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Fundus Refraction Offset as a Personalized Biomarker for 12-Year Risk of Retinal Detachment.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fundus Stretch Index: A Centile-Based Retinal Measure of Myopia.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence assisted quantitative analysis of fundus structural and vascular alterations reveals fundus tessellation as a robust biomarker of myopia severity.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic challenges in high myopia: identification of sight-threatening complications and the role of artificial intelligence.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential of a novel anatomical metric of ametropia-fundus refraction offset (FRO)-in stratifying the risk of retinal detachment (RD) or breaks, beyond the influence of risk factors including spherical equivalent refraction (SER). Methods: Participants from the UK Biobank with no prior history of RD/breaks were analyzed (n = 9320). The onset of RD/breaks over a 12-year follow-up period was determined based on linked healthcare data. A previously trained deep learning model was applied to each fundus photograph to predict SER. FRO was defined as the error in the fundus-predicted SER, with a negative value indicating a relatively myopic-looking fundus. Cox regression was used to examine the association of baseline FRO with RD/breaks-adjusting for baseline SER, baseline age, sex, and cataract surgery during follow-up. In a subgroup of participants (n = 7127) with high-quality optical coherence tomography scans, we additionally adjusted for baseline macular thickness (MT). All analyses initially considered any RD/breaks as the event, followed by rhegmatogenous RD/breaks. Results: The mean (SD) baseline age was 54.8 (8.2) years. Sixty-four participants developed RD/breaks (of any subcategory), with a mean (SD) of 7.0 (3.3) years between baseline and disease onset. A more negative baseline FRO was independently associated with an increased risk of any RD/breaks (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50-0.87, P = 0.003) and rhegmatogenous RD/breaks (HR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.45-0.82, P = 0.001). Similar independent associations were evident in the subgroup analysis that additionally adjusted for MT. Conclusions: A more negative baseline FRO is associated with a higher risk of developing RD/breaks, even among individuals with similar baseline SER and other risk factors. This demonstrates a potential benefit of shifting towards an anatomic definition of myopia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.