ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2026
Corrected gestational age-specific prediction models for identifying treatment-requiring retinopathy of prematurity.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate time-updated, corrected gestational age (CGA)-specific prediction models for identifying treatment-requiring retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) using routinely available systemic factors, and to assess longitudinal changes in predictor combinations and model performance with advancing CGA. STUDY
designRetrospective cohort study.
methodsPreterm infants who met institutional ROP screening criteria from a single tertiary center were included, excluding those with aggressive ROP. Multivariable logistic regression models were independently developed at CGA 28, 30, 32, and 34 weeks using routinely available systemic variables summarized from birth to each CGA. For each CGA-specific analysis, infants treated before the target CGA were excluded. Exhaustive subset selection based on the Akaike information criterion identified CGA-specific optimal predictor sets. Model performance was evaluated using stratified five-fold cross-validation with out-of-fold predictions, and discrimination was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
resultsPredictor combinations selected by the optimal models differed across CGAs, indicating longitudinal changes in the predictive relevance of systemic factors. Growth-related and inflammatory indices were repeatedly selected, while overall predictor composition evolved with advancing CGA. Discrimination improved at later CGAs, with cross-validated AUCs of 0.650, 0.716, 0.809, and 0.842 at CGA 28, 30, 32, and 34 weeks, respectively.
conclusionThese findings suggest that CGA-specific prediction models may help characterize the evolving risk of treatment-requiring ROP. However, prospective multicenter validation and further refinement are required before clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42470578What 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.