Skip to content

NotablePeer-reviewed

Decoding systemic vascular health and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy through retinal imaging and Visionary AI

BySrilaxmi Bearelly, Cassandra Areff, Matthew Hoffman, Daniel Sunko, Andrew F. Laine, Bin Choi and 2 others

Columbia University Irving Medical Center · New York University · Christiana Care Health System · Christiana Hospital and 2 more

What it is

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy arise from early dysfunction of the placenta and of blood vessels throughout the body, yet current first-trimester screening for them remains imprecise, biologically opaque and logistically challenging. The authors present Visionary AI, an interpretable platform that combines images of the retina (the light-sensitive tissue at the back of the eye) with graph-based modeling of its blood vessels to predict these disorders before clinical onset. It converts retinal images into topological and geometric representations of the microvascular structure (how the smallest vessels connect and branch, and their shapes), so that risk is predicted from biologically grounded vascular features rather than from generic image embeddings or clinical variables. Across population-wide control settings in a prospective development cohort of 1,267 pregnancies, it predicted preeclampsia, one of these disorders, with an area under the curve (AUC, a measure of how well a test separates future cases from non-cases) of 0.91 and an average precision (the share of flagged pregnancies that turn out to be true cases, averaged across every level of sensitivity) of 0.81.

Why it matters

Current first-trimester screening for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy is imprecise, and this study presents the mother's retinal vessels as a minimally invasive way to predict them. The authors call Visionary AI a biologically interpretable framework for sorting pregnancies by risk: it works from features of the vessel network, and the features that recurred involved the vessels' topology, geometry, network complexity and hierarchical organization. A version optimized for stability transferred without retraining to an independent external validation cohort, where it reached an AUC of 0.81 and an average precision of 0.68 and outperformed clinical and deep learning benchmarks.

Underlined numbers link to their source. Every metric and quoted figure is listed under Sources and data below.

Filed underPregnancy and preeclampsia studies, Retinal Imaging and Analysis, Neurological Complications and Syndromes

Scored 2026-10-08How scoring works

The Frontier Score, in full

How this entry's score is built, term by term. Open any pillar to see each sub-metric's raw value, how it maps to 0 to 100, and a link to its source (OpenAlex for most sub-metrics that combine several sources, NIH iCite where its ratio is part of field-normalized impact).
Evidence 84Impact 52Novelty 80
The three pillars as one shape: a result strong on every axis fills the triangle.
How the Frontier Score is calculated for this breakthrough
TermScoreWeightPoints
EvidenceHow established and verifiable the result is.84× 0.2520.9
ImpactHow much the result matters, judged field-relative and by current momentum.52× 0.2513.0
NoveltyHow genuinely new the result is, and how fast-moving.80× 0.5039.9
Weighted pillars73.7
Frontier recency0 months since publication× 1.00
IntegrityNot retracted× 1
Frontier Score74
Confidence: Early signal. Early signal: little citation history yet, so impact is an estimate and may shift as the work is taken up.Early signal: little citation history yet, so impact is an estimate and may shift as the work is taken up.

Every sub-metric, traced to its source

Evidence84
Evidence sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Peer review & venueWhether the work has cleared peer review, and how selective its venue is. Peer review is necessary but not sufficient: before citations accrue, a fresh result in one of the five general flagships (Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, the Lancet) is a stronger evidence signal than one in a selective specialist or society journal, which in turn outranks one in a legitimate but very high-volume mega-journal, and any of them outranks a preprint that has not been reviewed at all.Maps to 0 to 100: Peer-reviewed article graded by venue tier: flagship journal (Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, the Lancet) 100; selective journal (every other journal the index admits: the specialist journals of those families, JAMA, PNAS, Physical Review Letters and X) 90; high-volume mega-journal (Nature Communications, Science Advances) 78; venue not recorded 88. Other records: review 90, book 70, dataset 60, preprint 45, an article that has not been peer reviewed 45, other 55.Peer-reviewed, selective journal900.3027.0OpenAlex type / primary_location / source
CorroborationIndependent corroboration that the result is on the record and reaching beyond a single source, read as the BREADTH of independent records rather than the size of the citation pile. Counts how many of the five independent citation indices (OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, OpenCitations, Europe PMC) report a citation count for the work at all, zero included, plus orthogonal, non-citation lines of corroboration: citation in Wikipedia, registered clinical trials or clinical citations, released datasets or software or a repository copy, public funding on record, and technical-community discussion. Citation MAGNITUDE is deliberately judged under Impact, not here, so Evidence and Impact measure genuinely different things instead of both rewarding the same citation pile twice.Maps to 0 to 100: Starts at 28 and rises by 9 for each of the five independent citation indices that returns a citation count for the work (zero counts; OpenCitations returns zero even for a DOI it does not hold) and by 6 for each orthogonal non-citation line (Wikipedia, clinical trials or clinical citations, open datasets, software or a repository copy, public funding, community discussion), up to the top of the 0-100 scale.3 of 5 citation indices report a count550.3016.5OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, OpenCitations, Europe PMC, DataCite, NIH RePORTER, Wikipedia, Hacker News count of indices that report a count for the work + orthogonal reach
VerifiabilityHow openly the result can be read, reused, and reproduced. Rewards open access, a Creative Commons BY or CC0 license, a green repository copy anyone can archive, openly minable full text, and released datasets or software a reader can actually run. Cross-checked across OpenAlex, Unpaywall, Europe PMC, and DataCite.Maps to 0 to 100: Closed access 45; open access 88; any Creative Commons BY license (including the NC, ND and SA variants) or CC0 100. A repository copy raises the floor to 85, openly minable full text to 90, and released data or software to 92.Open access (hybrid), CC-BY-NC-ND1000.2020.0OpenAlex, Unpaywall, Europe PMC, DataCite is_oa / license / has_repository_copy / open datasets
IntegrityRetraction and post-publication correction status. A retracted result is not evidence of anything and collapses the whole Frontier Score; a correction or expression of concern is a softer flag. Read across OpenAlex and Crossref (both update-to and updated-by notices).Maps to 0 to 100: Clean 100; a correction or expression of concern 75; retracted 0. Flagged if OpenAlex OR Crossref records the notice.No retraction or concern on record1000.2020.0OpenAlex, Crossref is_retracted / update-to / updated-by
Impact52
Impact sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Field-normalized impactImpact relative to the world average for the same field, year, and type, so a small field and a large field are judged fairly. Triangulates three independent field-normalized measures: OpenAlex's Field-Weighted Citation Impact, its citation percentile within the exact field-and-year cohort, and the NIH iCite Relative Citation Ratio. 1.0x is average; the percentile is the share of same-field, same-year work it out-cites.Maps to 0 to 100: Each ratio (1.0 = field average) maps 1.0 to 50, 3.0 to 75, 9.0 to 90; the field+year percentile maps directly (top 1% -> ~99). The available measures are averaged. When none is available yet (very recent work), this sub-metric is left out and Impact is computed from the others.top 8% of field-year vs field920.4541.6OpenAlex, NIH iCite fwci / citation_normalized_percentile / relative_citation_ratio
Influential citationsCitations that genuinely build on the work rather than mention it in passing (Semantic Scholar's influential-citation measure). A sharper signal of real impact than a raw count.Maps to 0 to 100: Saturating: 15 influential citations maps to 50, and none maps to 0. When Semantic Scholar has no measure for the work, this sub-metric is left out and Impact is computed from the others.Not yet availablen/aredistributed0.0Semantic Scholar influentialCitationCount
Citation velocityCitations received in the trailing twelve months (estimated from yearly citation counts: this year's so far plus the share of last year's that falls inside the window), judged as a rate rather than a lifetime total. Momentum is what a frontier index cares about: a result being taken up fast right now is landing, whether its lifetime pile is large or still small. Where an expected field citation rate is known, the momentum is also read relative to it, so a fast-moving result in a quiet field is not overlooked.Maps to 0 to 100: Saturating: 30 citations in the last twelve months maps to 50. When NIH iCite provides the field's expected rate, this is blended evenly with the ratio of observed to expected momentum.0 in last 12 months00.350.0OpenAlex, NIH iCite counts_by_year / field_citation_rate
Novelty80
Novelty sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Conceptual noveltyHow genuinely new the contribution is, measured at publication from the work's OWN content, not its date: how atypical its combination of research areas is versus all prior work, and whether it builds on a broad, deep base rather than only the newest papers in a fast-moving area. This is what separates a real advance from a recent-but-commodity result, and it needs no forward citations, so it is stable for brand-new work. An honestly noisy proxy (even state-of-the-art novelty measures agree only moderately with expert judgment), so it carries bounded weight and never drives the ranking alone.Maps to 0 to 100: Two publication-time signals, each 0-100. The primary one is atypical combination: how unusual the work's median pairing of research topics is versus the prior literature, by pointwise mutual information (a pairing made far more often than chance scores low). The second, foundational reach (the median age of the work's references and the share older than five years), can only lift it: when reach is higher, the score rises by 35% of the gap, and it is never lowered. When only one signal is measurable it is used alone; when neither is (a work too thin in topics or references), this sub-metric is left out and Novelty is computed from the other three. A review is damped to 60%.Median topic pairing Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies x Retinal Imaging and Analysis (206 prior works made this pairing); builds on refs a median 6.9y deep730.4532.8OpenAlex topics + referenced_works (publication-time)
RecencyHow recently the work appeared. The frontier is now, so newer scores higher.Maps to 0 to 100: Exponential decay with a 12-month half-life from the publication date.This month1000.3029.9OpenAlex publication_date
Attention accelerationWhether attention is rising: citations in the latest full year versus the year before. Accelerating interest signals an active, opening frontier.Maps to 0 to 100: Latest/prior-year ratio: 1x maps to 50, 2x to 75, 4x to 100. The prior year counts as at least 3 citations, so a jump from one citation to a few is not read as explosive growth. With no citations in the latest full year it reads as unknown, and unknown is neutral (50).Not enough history500.105.0OpenAlex counts_by_year
Edge of reviewPreprints sit ahead of the peer-review process and brand-new papers have only just cleared it. Both earn novelty here (while a preprint is discounted under Evidence), because that is where the frontier forms first.Maps to 0 to 100: Preprint 95; any other record 80 when under 6 months old, 65 under 18 months, 45 after that.Peer-reviewed record800.1512.0OpenAlex type / publication_date
ProvenanceAll sources

Sources and data

The source figures behind this entry, grouped by the source that holds them: up to five citation indices cross-checked, field-normalized impact, then real-world reach (Wikipedia, community discussion, clinical trials, released data and public funding) where it exists. Each value links to its record.

OpenAlex

Primary record
Field-weighted citation impact
0.0x field average
Citation percentile
Top 8% of its field-year
Publication date
2026-10-06

Crossref

Citations
0
Works it builds on
54

OpenCitations

Citations
0

Unpaywall

Reuse license
CC-BY-NC-ND

Figures quoted in the write-up

FigureValueSource
Pregnancies in development cohort (Prospective development cohort)1,267 pregnanciesNature Biotechnology
Preeclampsia AUC, development cohort (Area under the curve, across population-wide control settings)0.91Nature Biotechnology
Average precision, development cohort (Preeclampsia prediction in the prospective development cohort)0.81Nature Biotechnology
AUC, external validation cohort (Stability-optimized model, transferred without retraining)0.81Nature Biotechnology
Average precision, external validation (Outperformed clinical and deep learning benchmarks)0.68Nature Biotechnology
For the authors

Show this score where your work lives

A badge for your lab page, your CV or the paper's code repository. It links readers to this entry, and it always carries the entry's current score.
This paper's Frontier Score badge, as it appears where you place itLive preview
<a href="https://frontierresearch.co/breakthroughs/decoding-systemic-vascular-health-and-hypertensive-disor-w7220695970?utm_source=badge&amp;utm_medium=badge&amp;utm_campaign=author-kit"><img src="https://frontierresearch.co/api/badge/W7220695970.svg" alt="Frontier Score for this paper" height="20"></a>

For a lab or personal website, a CV page, or anywhere that takes HTML.

The number is live. The badge is drawn from the same signals as this page, so it never shows a score the entry does not. Every entry is re-checked weekly against the same public sources, and a result's standing eases as it ages, so the active edge of the field stays on top. How scoring works

Something wrong or out of date? Write to hello@frontierresearch.co and the entry will be corrected.

AI & ComputingThe whole field

Back to the Frontier Index, or browse every breakthrough by date.

The Frontier Brief

The week's AI & Computing, scored.

Every Monday, up to six of the week's new AI & Computing entries in the index, each with its score and a one-line read on why it matters, then the week's best from the rest of the frontier. What you get

Prefer a feed reader? Follow AI & Computing by RSS

One email a week: up to six of the week's new AI & Computing entries, scored, then the best elsewhere. Unsubscribe anytime.