ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Opportunistic Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in the Eye Clinic: Validation of a Retinal Deep Learning-Based 10-Year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Estimator.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To derive and validate a retinal 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk estimator ("Dr Noon cardiovascular disease [CVD]") and compare its performance with the clinical gold-standard pooled cohort equation (PCE) in a US population. Design: Prospective cohort study with up to 10 years of follow-up. Participants: A total of 3096 participants (aged 55-75 years) from the multicenter Age-related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) with gradable baseline fundus photographs, including 1013 with PCE. Methods: The Dr Noon CVD estimator, which incorporates a deep learning-derived retinal coronary artery calcium surrogate along with age and sex, was derived using a Cox proportional hazards model and validated within the AREDS cohort. Its predictive performance was compared directly with the PCE. Main Outcome Measures: Incident fatal and nonfatal ASCVD events over 10 years. Performance metrics included risk stratification (hazard ratios [HRs]), discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (plot with intercept/slope), and reclassification (net reclassification index [NRI]). Results: Among 3096 participants, 202 (6.5%) experienced an ASCVD event. Although the PCE was precluded for 67.3% of the cohort (n = 2083) due to missing laboratory data, the retinal estimator provided scores for all participants with available imaging. Dr Noon CVD significantly stratified participants into low, moderate (HR, 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-2.71), and high-risk groups (HR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.64-3.93; P-trend < 00.001). Beyond traditional risk factors, the model significantly improved discrimination (ΔC-index, 3.4%) and reclassification (overall NRI, 0.194; 95% CI, 0.044-0.344). In direct comparison among participants with PCE (n = 1013), Dr Noon CVD demonstrated numerically higher discrimination (C-index, 0.665 vs. 0.647; Conclusions: Deep learning analysis of routine retinal photographs provides cardiovascular risk stratification comparable to established clinical equations, offering a valid, noninvasive solution for opportunistic screening even when missing laboratory data precludes the standard risk calculators. These findings support the potential for opportunistic systemic risk assessment within the eye clinic, enhancing the role of the ophthalmologist in primary prevention. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.