ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- IVCM-Insight: automated interactive interpretation of in vivo confocal microscopy.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study was aimed to investigate the microstructure characteristics of cornea verticillata and limbus deposits in patients with Fabry disease (FD) using Methods: A total of 60 eyes from 30 patients diagnosed with FD were examined and compared with 36 eyes from 18 healthy controls in this prospective, cross-sectional, controlled, single-center study. The initial assessment of cornea verticillata (CV) was conducted using slit-lamp microscopy. Subsequently, IVCM was performed to assess deposits in the corneal and limbal epithelium. We compared the differences between the sexes (heterozygous and hemizygous) and phenotypes (classical and non-classical). Results: The epithelial deposit detection rate with IVCM was statistically higher (52/60, 86.67%) compared to the biomicroscopic evaluation of CV using a silt lamp (46/60, 76.67%) ( Conclusion: Compared with slit-lamp microscopy, IVCM provides a more effective tool for examining the epithelial deposits in patients with FD. Patients with FD demonstrated a profound bilateral increase in corneal epithelial deposits and limbal hyperreflective cells compared to controls, with more prominent pathological changes observed in classical phenotype individuals. The high prevalence of epithelial deposits observed through IVCM in the cardiac variant highlights the essential ability of IVCM as an effective diagnostic tool.
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.