ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Diabetic Retinopathy Environment-Wide Association Study (EWAS) in NHANES 2005-2008.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- An enhanced machine learning algorithm for type 2 diabetes prognosis with a detailed examination of Key correlates.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Identification of diabetic retinopathy classification using machine learning algorithms on clinical data and optical coherence tomography angiography.Eye (London, England) · 2024Observational
- Association between HDL cholesterol with diabetic retinopathy in diabetic patients: a cross-sectional retrospective study.BMC endocrine disorders · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Association of different obesity patterns with hypertension in US male adults: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Diagnostic circulating biomarkers to detect vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy: Potential screening tool of the future?Acta ophthalmologica · 2022Review
- Putative Biomarkers in Tears for Diabetic Retinopathy Diagnosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Galectins in the Pathogenesis of Common Retinal Disease.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Several circulating biomarkers are reported to be associated with diabetic retinopathy (DR). However, their relative contributions to DR compared to known risk factors, such as hyperglycaemia, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia, remain unclear. In this data driven study, we used novel models to evaluate the associations of over 400 laboratory parameters with DR compared to the established risk factors. Methods: we performed an environment-wide association study (EWAS) of laboratory parameters available in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007-2008 in individuals with diabetes with DR as the outcome (test set). We employed independent variable (feature) selection approaches, including parallelised univariate regression modelling, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), penalised regression, and RandomForest™. These models were replicated in NHANES 2005-2006 (replication set). Our test and replication sets consisted of 1025 and 637 individuals with available DR status and laboratory data respectively. Glycohemoglobin (HbA1c) was the strongest risk factor for DR. Our PCA-based approach produced a model that incorporated 18 principal components (PCs) that had an Area under the Curve (AUC) 0.796 (95% CI 0.761-0.832), while penalised regression identified a 9-feature model with 78.51% accuracy and AUC 0.74 (95% CI 0.72-0.77). RandomForest™ identified a 31-feature model with 78.4% accuracy and AUC 0.71 (95% CI 0.65-0.77). On grouping the selected variables in our RandomForest™, hyperglycaemia alone achieved AUC 0.72 (95% CI 0.68-0.76). The AUC increased to 0.84 (95% CI 0.78-0.9) when the model also included hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, haematocrit, renal, and liver function tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.