Back

Anthropometric measures and their relationship to corneal refractive power in the United States population

Valluru, G.; Henick, D.; Klawe, J.; Liu, B.; Pasquale, L.; Ahmad, S.

2021-09-12 ophthalmology
10.1101/2021.09.10.21263400 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeTo determine the relationship between anthropometric measures and corneal refractive power (CRP). MethodsParticipants from the 1999-2008 United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) visual exam with demographic, ocular, and anthropometric data (20,165 subjects) were included. Cases with steep cornea were defined by corneal power [&ge;] 48.0 diopters (n = 171) while controls had dioptric power < 48.0 D (n = 19,994). Multivariable analyses were performed for pooled and sex-stratified populations. Separate models assessed body mass index, height, and weight in relation to steep cornea. ResultsA relationship between BMI and steep cornea in the pooled population was not detected (P for trend = 0.78). There was a strong inverse relationship between height and steep cornea in the pooled population (P for trend <0.0001) and women (P for trend <0.0001). For every 1-inch increase in height, there was a 16% reduced odds of steep cornea in the pooled population (OR, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.78-0.91). There was also a significant inverse relationship between weight and steep cornea in the pooled population (P for trend = 0.01) and in men (P for trend = 0.02). For each 10-pound increase in weight there was a 7% reduced odds of steep cornea (OR, 0.927; 95% CI: 0.882-0.975) in the pooled analysis. ConclusionsGreater height and greater weight were associated with a lower risk of steep cornea. These findings can contribute to an improved understanding of the pathogenesis of corneal ectasias.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.