ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Early-warning predictive model of retinal detachment in high myopia: a comprehensive construction and validation study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop an early warning prediction model integrating clinical indicators, ocular structural parameters, and quantitative fundus imaging features for myopic retinal detachment (MRD) to enhance the accuracy and clinical utility of MRD risk screening, thereby providing a quantitative basis for intervention in high-risk populations.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 352 patients with high myopic admitted the ophthalmology department between January 2020 and December 2023. The patients were randomly divided into a training set and a validation set at a 7:3 ratio. Twenty indicators were collected, including clinical and demographic data, ocular biometric parameters and fundus imaging and lesion assessment. Univariate analysis was used to screen MRD-related indicators, followed by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression for variable compression. Independent risk factors were identified through multivariate logistic regression. Random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and logistic regression (LR) models were constructed using Python 3.9.0 and the sklearn library. Model performance was evaluated based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity, with the optimal model selected and key predictive indicators analyzed.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the baseline data of patients between the training set and the validation set (P > 0.05). Through univariate analysis and logistic multivariate regression analysis, it was found that axial length (AL), central macular thickness, degree of vitreous liquefaction, area of retinal degeneration, and number of retinal breaks were independent risk factors for the occurrence of MRD (P < 0.05). The AUC of the RF model (0.890) was significantly higher than that of the LR model (0.813) and the SVM model (0.872), making it the optimal model.
conclusionThis study successfully constructed and verified an MRD early warning prediction model based on multi-dimensional indicators. The study identified AL, central macular thickness, degree of vitreous liquefaction, area of retinal degeneration, and number of retinal breaks as independent risk factors for MRD. This model provides clear guidance for clinicians to conduct risk stratification and formulate follow-up strategies, demonstrating high clinical applicability and promotion potential. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.