Back

Patient-level forecasting of geographic atrophy with a biologically grounded Gompertz model

Beckwith, A. D.; McNamara, S. M.; Veturi, Y. A.; Manoharan, N.; de Carlo Forest, T. E.; Kinder, S.; Bearce, B.; Gnanaraj, R.; Lynch, A.; Singh, P.; Nebbia, G.; Mandava, N.; Kalpathy-Cramer, J.

2025-10-05 ophthalmology
10.1101/2025.10.02.25337187 medRxiv
Show 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 mm2) versus logistic (0.48 mm2), linear (0.52 mm2), and effective radius (0.62 mm2), and received the highest pseudo-Bayesian model averaging weight (0.994). It yielded narrower 90% prediction intervals (2.41 mm2 vs. 3.99 mm2 for linear) and maintained these advantages at longer forecast horizons, where traditional models tended to overpredict. Differences were most pronounced during late (decelerating) growth. These findings demonstrate that Gompertz trajectories better capture lesion enlargement and modestly improve probabilistic forecasts compared with conventional approaches, supporting their use for patient counseling and for trial designs that account for natural growth deceleration.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Ophthalmology Science
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.5%
2
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 8%
8.8%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.6%
4
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 25%
7.1%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 15%
6.6%
50% of probability mass above
6
Nature Machine Intelligence
61 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.1%
7
Medical Image Analysis
33 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.5%
8
British Journal of Ophthalmology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
9
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.2%
10
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
11
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
12
Journal of Vision
92 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
13
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
14
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
15
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 18%
1.4%
16
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
17
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
18
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
19
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
20
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
Experimental Eye Research
30 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
22
Translational Vision Science & Technology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
23
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 46%
0.7%
24
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 24%
0.5%
25
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
26
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.5%