ArticleScientific reports2025
Differences between suspected keratoconus and subclinical keratoconus via multiparameter analysis in Chinese populations.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- CorvisThe British journal of ophthalmology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Keratoconus (KC) is a contraindication for corneal refractive surgery and can cause serious damage to the patient's vision. To improve the safety of the surgery, we aim to distinguish between suspected KC and subclinical KC, while also developing a predictive model for KC. This cross-sectional study investigated 116 eyes with suspected KC (I-S Value > 1.4 D and ≤ 1.9 D) and 28 eyes with subclinical KC. All the Chinese subjects were examined via the Pentacam and Corvis ST (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany). The 90 parameters of the Belin/Ambrósio System, Topometric/KC System, and Corvis ST System were extracted from internal CSV files and analyzed. The differences in all the parameters between the two groups were compared, and ROC curves were created. LASSO regression was employed to simplify the number of parameters, and a logistic regression model was constructed for KC prediction. The suspected KC group, in contrast to the subclinical KC group, predominantly consisted of females and older patients. The highest AUC parameters of the three systems were PachyProgIndexMax [0.896 (0.839, 0.954), cutoff = 1.445], IHD [0.787 (0.691, 0.883), cutoff = 0.029], SPA1 [0.811 (0.718, 0.904), cutoff = 87.485]. For the first discovery, the corneal diameter in the suspected KC group (11.56 ± 0.38) was smaller than that in the subclinical KC group (11.91 ± 0.33) (P < 0.05) [AUC = 0.736 (0.641, 0.832), cutoff = 11.825]. Seven relevant parameters were identified via LASSO regression (AUC = 0.954), including IHD, Cornea Diameter, DARatioMax_2 mm, BADDy, BADD, PachyProgIndexMax, and CBI. The prediction accuracy of the logistic regression model was 0.902 (AUC = 0.964). Our model effectively predicts an elevated risk of suspected KC to subclinical KC and even KC in younger Chinese men, particularly those exhibiting increased corneal diameter and morphological and biomechanical parameters. This model might help with screening for preoperative refractive surgery, thereby improving surgical safety.
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.