ArticleRetina (Philadelphia, Pa.)2026
C AN AQUEOUS PROTEOMICS PREDICT THE RECURRENCE OF RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT?
Article in Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore whether the proteome of aqueous collected during primary repair of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RD), differs between patients who experience recurrency (Recurrent RD Group) and those who do not (No Recurrent RD Group).
methodsThe aqueous proteome collected during primary surgery of 13 patients undergoing Recurrent RD was compared with 11 age- and sex-matched patients successfully operated for rhegmatogenous RD with no recurrency after 12-month follow-up, regardless of surgical technique. A label-free shotgun proteomics approach identified and quantified the repertoire of aqueous proteins. Differential protein expression between groups was determined using the Limma moderated Bayesian t -test, followed by false discovery rate (FDR) validation using Storey q-test.
resultsAqueous profiling identified >800 unique proteins; 45 exclusive to the Recurrent RD group, 10 exclusive to the no Recurrent RD group, and 33 differently expressed between groups (log2fold-change≥∣0.57∣, FDR ≤ 0.05). Proteins upregulated in Recurrent RD patients, clearly pointed to mechanisms of cell:cell and cell:matrix adhesiveness and mechano-transduction signaling pathways. Upregulated proteins included extracellular matrix components such as type I and IV collagens, biglycan, proteoglycans, and cell-membrane adhesion molecules.
conclusionThe baseline aqueous composition of RD patients that will eventually develop recurrency, differs significantly from those who will not, and already contains molecular signatures that may help identify the risk of recurrency at the time of primary repair. While acknowledging the pilot nature of the study, findings of this study strongly suggest that Recurrent RD is associated with cell adhesiveness pathways early alterations, offering targets for prognostic assessment and therapy.
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.