ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Utility of a Model to Predict Endothelial Cell Density of Donor Corneas to Determine Suitability for Transplantation.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. 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.
- Development and Clinical Validation of the DMEK Risk and Outcome Prediction (DROP) Score: A Dynamic Temporal Machine Learning Framework.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Analysis of clinical factors affecting corneal endothelial cell density in eye bank donors.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Multimodal Imaging of the Corneal Endothelial Transition Zone Reveals Progenitor Cell Population.Cells · 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: In Germany, approximately one-third of the harvested donor corneas are not suitable for transplantation, mostly due to insufficient endothelial cell density (ECD). The ECD can only be reliably determined after harvesting and processing of the cornea. Our group has previously developed a predictive model for corneal ECD: \( {Predicted\, ECD} = 2919-6^{\ast}\;{age}\; [{years}]-189\; [{if\, male}]\\ -7^{\ast}\;{death-to-explantation\, interval\,} [{hours}]\\ - 378\; [{if\, pseudophakic}] \;{cells/mm}^2 \). Methods: A total of 2.999 consecutive donor corneas harvested between 2017 and 2021 from the Eye Bank of Rhineland-Palatinate in Mainz, Germany, were included. An actual ECD of >2000 cells/mm2 was defined as the cutoff value. To evaluate the clinical utility of the prognostic model as a screening instrument for transplant eligibility in an independent cohort, we performed a decision curve analysis. Results: The median predicted ECD was 2061 cells/mm2 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1834 to 2221), whereas the median actual ECD was 2377 cells/mm2 (IQR = 1907 to 2624). There was a positive correlation between predicted and actual ECD (correlation coefficient = 0.411; P < 0.01). Our predictive model for ECD is a strong predictor for an actual ECD greater than 2000 (odds ratio = 1.374, 95% confidence interval [CI]) per 100 cells; P < 0.001, area under the curve [AUC] of 0.73). Decision curve analysis showed that the predictive model yielded a positive net benefit in clinical settings. Conclusions: Decision curve analysis demonstrated a positive net benefit of the ECD predictive model in clinical settings with limited eye bank resources. Translational Relevance: In possible scenarios where a choice between corneal grafts is required, or in countries with limited eye bank infrastructure and staff, the initial estimate of ECD from the formula may be beneficial.
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.