Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23919537›Full record

ArticleBMC ophthalmology2013

Tear fluid proteomics multimarkers for diabetic retinopathy screening.

Zsolt Torok, Tunde Peto, Eva Csosz, Edit Tukacs, Agnes Molnar, Zsuzsanna Maros-Szabo, Andras Berta, Jozsef Tozser, Andras Hajdu, Valeria Nagy and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Applications of artificial intelligence and bioinformatics methodologies in the analysis of ocular biofluid markers: a scoping review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Proteomic Analysis of Tear Film Obtained from Diabetic Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
  19. Observational
  20. Proteomic Biomarkers of Retinal Inflammation in Diabetic Retinopathy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Zsolt TorokDepartment of Computer Graphics and Image Processing, University of Debrecen, Faculty of Informatics, Debrecen, Hungary. zsolt.torok@astridbio.com
Tunde Peto
Eva Csosz
Edit Tukacs
Agnes Molnar
Zsuzsanna Maros-Szabo
Andras Berta
Jozsef Tozser
Andras Hajdu
Valeria Nagy
Balint Domokos
Adrienne Csutak
University of Debrecen · HUSt. Michael's Hospital · CAUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 96566
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of the project was to develop a novel method for diabetic retinopathy screening based on the examination of tear fluid biomarker changes. In order to evaluate the usability of protein biomarkers for pre-screening purposes several different approaches were used, including machine learning algorithms.

methodsAll persons involved in the study had diabetes. Diabetic retinopathy (DR) was diagnosed by capturing 7-field fundus images, evaluated by two independent ophthalmologists. 165 eyes were examined (from 119 patients), 55 were diagnosed healthy and 110 images showed signs of DR. Tear samples were taken from all eyes and state-of-the-art nano-HPLC coupled ESI-MS/MS mass spectrometry protein identification was performed on all samples. Applicability of protein biomarkers was evaluated by six different optimally parameterized machine learning algorithms: Support Vector Machine, Recursive Partitioning, Random Forest, Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbor.

resultsOut of the six investigated machine learning algorithms the result of Recursive Partitioning proved to be the most accurate. The performance of the system realizing the above algorithm reached 74% sensitivity and 48% specificity.

conclusionsProtein biomarkers selected and classified with machine learning algorithms alone are at present not recommended for screening purposes because of low specificity and sensitivity values. This tool can be potentially used to improve the results of image processing methods as a complementary tool in automatic or semiautomatic systems.

Indexed as

AdultAlgorithmsBiomarkersDiabetic RetinopathyEye ProteinsFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleSensitivity and SpecificityTandem Mass SpectrometryTearsBiomarkersEye Proteins

Identifiers

PMID23919537
PMCPMC3770351
OpenAlexW2054335978

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.