ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Patient-level forecasting of geographic atrophy with a biologically grounded Gompertz model.
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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We tested whether a Gompertz growth curve better describes and predicts geographic atrophy lesion enlargement than linear and effective-radius (square-root) models. We analyzed a retrospective, single-center cohort of 121 patients (181 eyes) with serial fundus autofluorescence imaging from October 2012 to April 2023, excluding eyes that had received prior geographic atrophy therapies or fewer than five gradable visits, creating a natural-history cohort. We fitted four candidate models (Gompertz, logistic, linear, and effective radius) within a hierarchical framework. We evaluated model accuracy using rolling out-of-sample forecasts, as assessed by continuous ranked probability scores. We assessed calibration by the prediction-interval width and coverage. The median follow-up was 5.8 years (IQR, 2.8 years), the mean age was 79.2 years (SD, 7.9 years), and 60% of the cohort were female. Gompertz achieved the lowest forecast error (0.45 mm
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.