ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Red blood cell count and its inverse association with diabetic retinopathy: Exploratory development of a risk assessment model in a retrospective cohort.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the association between red blood cell count (RBC) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) and to develop a preliminary risk assessment framework. Methods: A total of 413 individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at Suqian First Hospital's Endocrinology Department were included in this study. These participants were divided into training and validation groups in a 7:3 ratio, consisting of 289 and 124 patients respectively. In the training cohort, potential predictive variables were determined through both univariate and multivariate analyses utilizing forward-backward stepwise selection. Only variables with p < 0.05 were included in the nomogram, which encompassed demographic information, clinical laboratory results, and diabetes-associated complications. The performance of the model was evaluated in both groups using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test for calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA) to determine clinical utility. Results: Out of 20 clinical variables examined, five were chosen to develop the nomogram: RBC, serum creatinine (SCR), diabetes duration, diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), and diabetic kidney disease (DKD). The ROC analysis revealed that the area under the curve (AUC) for the training cohort was 0.765 (95% CI 0.709-0.821) and for the validation cohort was 0.707 (95% CI 0.616-0.798). Results from the Hosmer-Lemeshow test were p = 0.233 and p = 0.579, indicating a good fit. The nomogram demonstrated excellent predictive accuracy and provides a quantitative tool for assessing the risk of DR in individuals with T2DM. Conclusion: Our findings suggest an inverse association between RBC levels and DR risk. The exploratory model incorporating RBC provides an initial framework for evaluating DR risk in patients with T2DM. Further validation in prospective cohorts is needed to refine this framework before considering clinical applications.
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.