Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39181547›Full record

ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2024

Estimating biological age from retinal imaging: a scoping review.

Michaela Joan Grimbly, Sheri-Michelle Koopowitz, Ruiye Chen, Zihan Sun, Paul J Foster, Mingguang He, Dan J Stein, Jonathan Ipser, Zhuoting Zhu

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Functional, molecular, and digital measurements of biological age.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2026
    Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A Novel Foundation Model-Based Framework for Multimodal Retinal Age Prediction.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Michaela Joan GrimblySAMRC Unit on Risk & Resilience in Mental Disorders, Department of Psychiatry and Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa GRMMIC004@myuct.ac.za.ORCID 0009-0008-8744-4451
Sheri-Michelle KoopowitzSAMRC Unit on Risk & Resilience in Mental Disorders, Department of Psychiatry and Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Ruiye ChenCentre for Eye Research Australia, Ophthalmology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2452-5728
Zihan SunNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields NHS Foundation Trust and The UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdon.ORCID 0000-0002-5001-7113
Paul J FosterNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields NHS Foundation Trust and The UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdon.ORCID 0000-0002-4755-177X
Mingguang HeCentre for Eye Research Australia, Ophthalmology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Dan J SteinSAMRC Unit on Risk & Resilience in Mental Disorders, Department of Psychiatry and Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Jonathan IpserSAMRC Unit on Risk & Resilience in Mental Disorders, Department of Psychiatry and Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Zhuoting ZhuCentre for Eye Research Australia, Ophthalmology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9897-1192

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsThe emerging concept of retinal age, a biomarker derived from retinal images, holds promise in estimating biological age. The retinal age gap (RAG) represents the difference between retinal age and chronological age, which serves as an indicator of deviations from normal ageing. This scoping review aims to collate studies on retinal age to determine its potential clinical utility and to identify knowledge gaps for future research.

methodsUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist, eligible non-review, human studies were identified, selected and appraised. PubMed, Scopus, SciELO, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane, CINAHL, Africa Wide EBSCO, MedRxiv and BioRxiv databases were searched to identify literature pertaining to retinal age, the RAG and their associations. No restrictions were imposed on publication date.

resultsThirteen articles published between 2022 and 2023 were analysed, revealing four models capable of determining biological age from retinal images. Three models, 'Retinal Age', 'EyeAge' and a 'convolutional network-based model', achieved comparable mean absolute errors: 3.55, 3.30 and 3.97, respectively. A fourth model, 'RetiAGE', predicting the probability of being older than 65 years, also demonstrated strong predictive ability with respect to clinical outcomes. In the models identified, a higher predicted RAG demonstrated an association with negative occurrences, notably mortality and cardiovascular health outcomes.

conclusionThis review highlights the potential clinical application of retinal age and RAG, emphasising the need for further research to establish their generalisability for clinical use, particularly in neuropsychiatry. The identified models showcase promising accuracy in estimating biological age, suggesting its viability for evaluating health status.

Indexed as

AgingRetinaHumanseye (globe)imagingpublic healthretina

Identifiers

PMID39181547
PMCPMC11344507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.