ArticleScientific reports2025
Validation of a screening score model to predict the development of retinopathy of prematurity.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AutoGluon-based interpretable machine learning for clinical risk stratification of retinopathy of prematurity in very preterm infants.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Beyond oxygen targets: the DOSE framework as a conceptual model for dynamic oxygen stewardship in retinopathy of prematurity.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is a leading cause of preventable blindness in preterm infants, with a disproportionate burden in low- and middle-income countries. Screening criteria from high-income settings may not be directly applicable in these contexts. We developed and validated two pragmatic risk-based screening models using multicenter Indonesian neonatal data: Model A (FiO₂-based) and Model B (SpO₂-based). Significant predictors included intrauterine growth restriction, oxygen exposure, exchange transfusion, and socioeconomic status. Internal validation showed moderate discrimination (AUC 0.719-0.732) with sensitivities of 77-86% and specificities of 44-58%. The bedside operational score form is presented for clinical use. External validation in 163 infants (gestational age 25-37 weeks, birth weight 600-2000 g) confirmed robust performance, with the combined rule (positive if either model was positive) achieving a sensitivity 84%, a specificity 81%, positive predictive value 76%, and negative predictive value 87%. The pre-test probability of ROP was 0.42, increasing to 0.76 after a positive screen and decreasing to 0.13 after a negative result. These findings support the use of locally validated risk-based scores as a practical complement to gestational age and birth weight criteria, optimizing ROP case finding in resource-limited settings.
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.