SynthesisOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Polygenic Risk Scores for Myopia: A Systematic Review of Predictive Performance and Clinical Potential.
Synthesis in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeGiven the genetic predisposition to myopia, polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been proposed as a tool for early risk identification. This study assessed the discriminatory ability of PRS in myopia prediction systematically and compared the performance of different PRS models.
methodsThis systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD420251180577). Five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Scopus) were searched from inception to October 11, 2025. Eligible studies were required to develop or validate myopia prediction models that incorporated PRS and to report at least one discrimination metric. The methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed independently using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST).
resultsTen studies met the inclusion criteria. The discriminatory performance of PRS-only models ranged from an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.51-0.80, whereas combined models integrating PRS with clinical or other factors demonstrated a higher performance range (AUC 0.57-0.99). Predictive performance varied according to myopia phenotype, ancestry, and PRS construction strategy. Models tended to achieve stronger discrimination for high or moderate myopia compared with low myopia, and performed better in European populations than in other ancestry groups. Increasing the number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms included in the PRS yielded only modest incremental improvements in predictive accuracy. Across all comparisons, combined models consistently outperformed PRS-only models.
conclusionsPRS contributes to myopia risk prediction, particularly when integrated with clinical or other risk factors, and its predictive performance varies across myopia phenotype, ethnicity, age and the number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Further large-scale, multi-ancestry validation and evaluation of implementation feasibility are needed before PRS can be incorporated effectively into routine myopia prevention and risk stratification strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41894138What 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.