ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2024
Applicability of Oculomics for Individual Risk Prediction: Repeatability and Robustness of Retinal Fractal Dimension Using DART and AutoMorph.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retinalysis-Vascx: An Explainable Software Toolbox for the Extraction of Retinal Vascular Biomarkers From Color Fundus Images.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Dynamic Oculomics for Diagnostic Monitoring: Personal Ocular Trends, Risk Stratification and Treatment Response.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- VascX Models: Deep Ensembles for Retinal Vascular Analysis From Color Fundus Images.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- SLOctolyzer: Fully Automatic Analysis Toolkit for Segmentation and Feature Extracting in Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy Images.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate whether fractal dimension (FD)-based oculomics could be used for individual risk prediction by evaluating repeatability and robustness. Methods: We used two datasets: "Caledonia," healthy adults imaged multiple times in quick succession for research (26 subjects, 39 eyes, 377 color fundus images), and GRAPE, glaucoma patients with baseline and follow-up visits (106 subjects, 196 eyes, 392 images). Mean follow-up time was 18.3 months in GRAPE; thus it provides a pessimistic lower bound because vasculature could change. FD was computed with DART and AutoMorph. Image quality was assessed with QuickQual, but no images were initially excluded. Pearson, Spearman, and intraclass correlation (ICC) were used for population-level repeatability. For individual-level repeatability, we introduce measurement noise parameter λ, which is within-eye standard deviation (SD) of FD measurements in units of between-eyes SD. Results: In Caledonia, ICC was 0.8153 for DART and 0.5779 for AutoMorph, Pearson/Spearman correlation (first and last image) 0.7857/0.7824 for DART, and 0.3933/0.6253 for AutoMorph. In GRAPE, Pearson/Spearman correlation (first and next visit) was 0.7479/0.7474 for DART, and 0.7109/0.7208 for AutoMorph (all P < 0.0001). Median λ in Caledonia without exclusions was 3.55% for DART and 12.65% for AutoMorph and improved to up to 1.67% and 6.64% with quality-based exclusions, respectively. Quality exclusions primarily mitigated large outliers. Worst quality in an eye correlated strongly with λ (Pearson 0.5350-0.7550, depending on dataset and method, all P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Repeatability was sufficient for individual-level predictions in heterogeneous populations. DART performed better on all metrics and might be able to detect small, longitudinal changes, highlighting the potential of robust methods.
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.