ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2023
Genetic Risk Score Analysis Supports a Joint View of Two Classification Systems for Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Science and Technology to Eye-Health Policy: A Review on Global and Asia-Pacific Strategies on the Prevention of Blindness from Retinal Diseases.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Diverse-Ancestry GWAS of Age-Related Macular Degeneration on 16,108 Examined Cases and 18,038 Controls.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- [Awareness for age-related macular degeneration in the population-based AugUR study : Comparison of participant self-report with medical records data from treating ophthalmologists].Die Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of combining the Clinical Classification (CC) and the Three Continent age-related macular degeneration (AMD) Consortium Severity Scale (3CACSS) for classification of AMD. Methods: In two independent cross-sectional datasets of our population-based AugUR study (Altersbezogene Untersuchungen zur Gesundheit der Universität Regensburg), we graded AMD via color fundus images applying two established classification systems (CC and 3CACSS). We calculated the genetic risk score (GRS) across 50 previously identified variants for late AMD, its association via logistic regression, and area under the curve (AUC) for each AMD stage. Results: We analyzed 2188 persons aged 70 to 95 years. When comparing the two classification systems, we found a distinct pattern: CC "age-related changes" and CC "early AMD" distinguished individuals with 3CACSS "no AMD"; 3CACSS "mild/moderate/severe early AMD" stages, and distinguished CC "intermediate AMD". This suggested a 7-step scale combining the 2 systems: (i) "no AMD", (ii) "age-related changes", (iii) "very early AMD", (i.e. CC "early"), (iv) "mild early AMD", (v) "moderate early AMD", (vi) "severe early AMD", and (vii) "late AMD". GRS association and diagnostic accuracy increased stepwise by increased AMD severity in the 7-step scale and by increased restriction of controls (e.g. for CC "no AMD without age-related changes": AUC = 55.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 51.6, 58.6, AUC = 62.3%, 95% CI = 59.1, 65.6, AUC = 63.8%, 95% CI = 59.3, 68.3, AUC = 78.1%, 95% CI = 73.6, 82.5, AUC = 82.2%, 95% CI = 78.4, 86.0, and AUC = 79.2%, 95% CI = 75.4, 83.0). A stepwise increase was also observed by increased drusen size and area. Conclusions: The utility of a 7-step scale is supported by our clinical and GRS data. This harmonization and full data integration provides an immediate simplification over using either CC or 3CACSS and helps to sharpen the control group.
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.