ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
AI-GUIDED ENDPOINT SELECTION FOR NEUROPROTECTION TRIALS IN GLAUCOMA.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP) is the mainstay for monitoring glaucoma progression and has been accepted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a trial endpoint, but only under stringent criteria of ≥7 dB loss in five pre-specified test locations. Identifying such locations a priori has remained a major barrier for neuroprotection trials. We developed an attention-based graph neural network (GNN) to predict the visual field points most likely to deteriorate (High-5) using baseline SAP data. The model was trained in the Bascom Palmer Ophthalmic Registry (BPOR; 6,996 eyes, 5,405 patients, 40,914 tests) and externally validated in the Duke Glaucoma Registry (DGR; 5,211 eyes, 3,933 patients, 31,225 tests) and the University of Washington Humphrey Visual Field dataset (UWHVF; 2,030 eyes, 1,195 patients, 10,310 tests). In internal validation, the mean slope at High-5 points among progressors was -2.16±0.80 dB/year, compared to -0.55±0.44 dB/year for Low-5 and -1.02±0.40 dB/year for mean deviation (MD). Similar results were observed in DGR (-2.05 vs -0.45 vs -0.93 dB/year) and UWHVF (-2.32 vs -0.66 vs -1.14 dB/year). High-5 showed superior discrimination of progressors from non-progressors with areas under the ROC curve of 0.883, 0.898, and 0.937 across the three cohorts, consistently outperforming MD (0.871-0.911) and Low-5 (0.668-0.731). Nearly all progressing eyes exhibited a repeatable Funding: This work was supported in part by NIH R01 (EY036593) and by the Glaucoma Research Foundation (grant Endpoints2025MedeF).
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.