Cited by 48Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsNutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseRetinal Development and Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genetic Polymorphisms of CFH and ARMS2 Do Not Predict Response to Antioxidants and Zinc in Patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration

Open access

Abstract

Purpose Considerable controversy has erupted in recent years regarding whether genotyping should be part of standard care for patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) who are being considered for treatment with antioxidants and zinc. We aimed to determine whether genotype predicts response to supplements in AMD.Design Three separate statistical teams reanalyzed data derived from the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS), receiving data prepared by the AREDS investigators and, separately, data from investigators reporting findings that support the use of genotyping.Participants The population of interest was AREDS participants with AMD worse than category 1 and genotyping data available. Data from the 2 groups overlap imperfectly with respect to measurements made: the largest common set involved 879 participants for whom the same CFH and ARMS2 single nucleotide polymorphisms were measured by both groups.Methods Each team took a separate but complementary approach. One team focused on data concordance between conflicting studies. A second team focused on replicating the key claim of an interaction between genotype and treatment. The third team took a blank slate approach in attempting to find baseline predictors of treatment response.Main outcome measures Progression to advanced AMD.Results We found errors in the data used to support the initial claim of genotype-treatment interaction. Although we found evidence that high-risk patients had more to gain from treatment, we were unable to replicate any genotype-treatment interactions after adjusting for multiple testing. We tested 1 genotype claim on an independent set of data, with negative results. Even if we assumed that interactions in fact did exist, we did not find evidence to support the claim that supplementation leads to a large increase in the risk of advanced AMD in some genotype subgroups.Conclusions Patients who meet criteria for supplements to prevent AMD progression should be offered zinc and antioxidants without consideration of genotype.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.09.008

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Additional investigators independently reviewed the AREDS data and concluded that no significant genetic associations existed.

    “Additional investigators independently reviewed the AREDS data and concluded that no significant genetic associations existed [66].”

    From Genetics and Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Practical Review for Clinicians. (2024) · cites this paper as [66]

    The Introduction and Discussion describe three independent statistical groups reanalyzing AREDS data and finding no evidence that genotype should guide antioxidant and zinc treatment. But “no significant genetic associations” is too broad: the Introduction reports a prognostic relationship between CFH/ARMS2 genotype and AMD progression, while the Results say no genotype–treatment interaction remained significant after correction for multiple testing. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Assel, M. J., Li, F., Wang, Y., Allen, A. S., Baggerly, K. A., & Vickers, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Vickers, Andrew J.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
125
Issue
3
Pages
391-397
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2763231046
Cited by
48
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9
FWCI
6.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ophthalmology (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Development and Disorders
Keywords
age-related macular degeneration, CFH gene, genetic polymorphism, genotype × treatment interaction, antioxidant supplementation, zinc supplementation, AREDS, treatment response prediction, data concordance, replication
MeSH terms
Aged, Alleles, Antioxidants, DNA, Female, Genotype, Humans, Macular Degeneration, Male, Prognosis, Proteins, Zinc, Complement Factor H, Disease Progression, Dietary Supplements, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review