Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41084978›Full record

ArticleActa ophthalmologica2026

Exploring the histopathological signature of repeat-mediated Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy.

Anne-Marie S Kladny, Nihar Bhattacharyya, Marcos Abreu Costa, Stephen J Tuft, Caroline Thaung, Alice E Davidson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anne-Marie S KladnyUCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8105-8973
Nihar BhattacharyyaUCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Marcos Abreu CostaUCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Stephen J TuftUCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8192-5192
Caroline ThaungUCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Alice E DavidsonUCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1816-6151

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 527928847Fight for Sight UK 5171/5172Moorfields Eye Charity GR001337NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre NIHR203322Sight Research UK UK SEE016UKRI MR/S031820/1UKRI MR/Y019911/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the histological differences between Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) cases with and without the most common genetic risk factor, expansion of a CTG repeat (CTG18.1) within the TCF4 gene.

methodsFormalin-fixed paraffin-embedded corneal tissues were compared retrospectively, and CTG18.1 status was determined from blood-derived gDNA. Cases were defined as expansion-positive (Exp

resultsIn total, 72 unrelated corneal specimens (43 from endothelial keratoplasty and 29 from penetrating keratoplasty) with corresponding genetic data were analysed. We assigned a 'typical' histopathological guttae appearance to 88% (53/60) of Exp

conclusionHistopathological guttae appearance was not found to correlate with CTG18.1 expansion status. However, male sex or coexisting keratoconus was more frequently associated with histology categorised as 'not typical'.

Indexed as

DNAEndothelium, CornealFuchs' Endothelial DystrophyTranscription Factor 4Trinucleotide Repeat ExpansionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGenotypeHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesDNATCF4 protein, humanTranscription Factor 4corneal dystrophyCTG18.1Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophygenotype–phenotypeguttaehistopathologyrepeat expansionTCF4triplet‐repeat

Identifiers

PMID41084978
PMCPMC13058678

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.