ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2026
Selecting measures of visual function to classify diabetic retinopathy status: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open 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
Abstract
aimTo identify combinations of up to three visual function tests with the best performance for classifying diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity stage. To describe in detail the measurements from a comprehensive set of visual function tests.
methods1901 eyes (1032 participants) underwent nine visual function tests. Fundus, ultra-widefield and optical coherence tomography images were graded for DR and diabetic macular oedema (DMO). Three classification tasks were set: (1) distinguishing diabetes mellitus (DM) no DR from healthy with no DM, (2) DR no DMO from DM no DR and (3) DR with DMO from DR no DMO. Ensemble machine learning models for all one-way, two-way and three-way combinations of visual function variables were compared using area under the curve (AUC).
resultsThe top 30 models for each task achieved high accuracy, with AUC ≥0.94. For task 1, 17/30 top models contained distance visual acuity. Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity and low luminance visual acuity also featured highly. For task 2, 19/30 models contained mesopic microperimetry. Near visual acuity, matrix microperimetry and reading index featured highly. For task 3, 17/30 models contained distance visual acuity. Smith-Kettlewell low luminance near visual acuity and near visual acuity featured highly. In a subset of eyes where perimetry was not performed, reading index featured in 22, 21 and 22 of the top models for tasks 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
conclusionsThese findings will enable researchers and those planning clinical trials to select the best combination of visual function tests for distinguishing stages of diabetic eye disease.
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.