ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology2021
Classification Criteria for Acute Posterior Multifocal Placoid Pigment Epitheliopathy.
Article in American journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Macular Neovascular Membrane as a Late Complication of Acute Posterior Multifocal Placoid Pigment Epitheliopathy (APMPPE) Managed With Intravitreal Aflibercept.Case reports in ophthalmological medicine · 2026Article
- Multi-Wavelength Autofluorescence Characteristics and Association With Inflammation in Acute Posterior Multifocal Placoid Pigment Epitheliopathy.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Immune pathogenic response landscape of acute posterior multifocal placoid pigment epitheliopathy revealed by scRNA sequencing.Genes and immunity · 2025Article
- Multimodal Imaging Features of Retinal Lesions in Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis: A Clinical Analysis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Uveitis: Innovations in Diagnosis and Therapeutic Strategies.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
- The role of a multicentre data repository in ocular inflammation: The Ocular Autoimmune Systemic Inflammatory Infectious Study (OASIS).Eye (London, England) · 2023Review
- The standardisation of uveitis nomenclature (SUN) project.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2022Review
- Acute posterior multifocal placoid pigment epitheliopathy associated with serous retinal detachment: A case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- [Development of classification criteria for uveitis by the standardization of uveitis nomenclature (SUN) working group].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2021Review
- Development of Classification Criteria for the Uveitides.American journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine classification criteria for acute posterior multifocal placoid pigment epitheliopathy (APMPPE).
designMachine learning of cases with APMPPE and 8 other posterior uveitides.
methodsCases of posterior uveitides were collected in an informatics-designed preliminary database, and a final database was constructed of cases achieving supermajority agreement on diagnosis, using formal consensus techniques. Cases were split into a training set and a validation set. Machine learning using multinomial logistic regression was used on the training set to determine a parsimonious set of criteria that minimized the misclassification rate among the posterior uveitides. The resulting criteria were evaluated on the validation set.
resultsOne thousand sixty-eight cases of posterior uveitides, including 82 cases of APMPPE, were evaluated by machine learning. Key criteria for APMPPE included (1) choroidal lesions with a plaque-like or placoid appearance and (2) characteristic imaging on fluorescein angiography (lesions "block early and stain late diffusely"). Overall accuracy for posterior uveitides was 92.7% in the training set and 98.0% (95% confidence interval 94.3, 99.3) in the validation set. The misclassification rates for APMPPE were 5% in the training set and 0% in the validation set.
conclusionsThe criteria for APMPPE had a low misclassification rate and seemed to perform sufficiently well for use in clinical and translational research.
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.