ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2021
Model Structure Uncertainty in the Characterization and Growth of Geographic Atrophy.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Term Natural History of Treatment-Naïve Geographic Atrophy in Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Observational
- Progression of Geographic Atrophy: Epistemic Uncertainties Affecting Mathematical Models and Machine Learning.Translational vision science & technology · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To identify the most suitable model for assessing the rate of growth of total geographic atrophy (GA) by analysis of model structure uncertainty. Methods: Model structure uncertainty refers to unexplained variability arising from the choice of mathematical model and represents an example of epistemic uncertainty. In this study, we quantified this uncertainty to help identify a model most representative of GA progression. Fundus autofluorescence (FAF) images and GA progression data (i.e., total GA area estimation at each presentation) were acquired using Spectralis HRA+OCT instrumentation and RegionFinder software. Six regression models were evaluated. Models were compared using various statistical tests, [i.e., coefficient of determination (r2), uncertainty metric (U), and test of significance for the correlation coefficient, r], as well as adherence to expected physical and clinical assumptions of GA growth. Results: Analysis was carried out for 81 GA-affected eyes, 531 FAF images (range: 3-17 images per eye), over median of 57 months (IQR: 42, 74), with a mean baseline lesion size of 2.62 ± 4.49 mm2 (range: 0.11-20.69 mm2). The linear model proved to be the most representative of total GA growth, with lowest average uncertainty (original scale: U = 0.025, square root scale: U = 0.014), high average r2 (original scale: 0.92, square root scale: 0.93), and applicability of the model was supported by a high correlation coefficient, r, with statistical significance (P = 0.01). Conclusions: Statistical analysis of uncertainty suggests that the linear model provides an effective and practical representation of the rate and progression of total GA growth based on data from patient presentations in clinical settings. Translational Relevance: Identification of correct model structure to characterize rate of growth of total GA in the retina using FAF images provides an objective metric for comparing interventions and charting GA progression in clinical presentations.
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.