ArticleEye and vision (London, England)2023
Artificial intelligence-based refractive error prediction and EVO-implantable collamer lens power calculation for myopia correction.
Article in Eye and vision (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting vault after implantable collamer lens implantation using intraoperative OCT: establishment and application of models.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of adult patients with myopia toward refractive surgery and postoperative medications: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in refractive surgery: progress, challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Prediction of refractive error in adolescents using a multimodal large language model.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Prediction of Postoperative Rotation Stability After Toric Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence applications in refractive error management: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Shaping the future of myopia with artificial intelligence: Mapping trends and promising directions.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplantable collamer lens (ICL) has been widely accepted for its excellent visual outcomes for myopia correction. It is a new challenge in phakic IOL power calculation, especially for those with low and moderate myopia. This study aimed to establish a novel stacking machine learning (ML) model for predicting postoperative refraction errors and calculating EVO-ICL lens power.
methodsWe enrolled 2767 eyes of 1678 patients (age: 27.5 ± 6.33 years, 18-54 years) who underwent non-toric (NT)-ICL or toric-ICL (TICL) implantation during 2014 to 2021. The postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) and sphere were predicted using stacking ML models [support vector regression (SVR), LASSO, random forest, and XGBoost] and training based on ocular dimensional parameters from NT-ICL and TICL cases, respectively. The accuracy of the stacking ML models was compared with that of the modified vergence formula (MVF) based on the mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentages of eyes within ± 0.25, ± 0.50, and ± 0.75 diopters (D) and Bland-Altman analyses. In addition, the recommended spheric lens power was calculated with 0.25 D intervals and targeting emmetropia.
resultsAfter NT-ICL implantation, the random forest model demonstrated the lowest MAE (0.339 D) for predicting SE. Contrarily, the SVR model showed the lowest MAE (0.386 D) for predicting the sphere. After TICL implantation, the XGBoost model showed the lowest MAE for predicting both SE (0.325 D) and sphere (0.308 D). Compared with MVF, ML models had numerically lower values of standard deviation, MAE, and MedAE and comparable percentages of eyes within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 0.75 D prediction errors. The difference between MVF and ML models was larger in eyes with low-to-moderate myopia (preoperative SE > - 6.00 D). Our final optimal stacking ML models showed strong agreement between the predictive values of MVF by Bland-Altman plots.
conclusionWith various ocular dimensional parameters, ML models demonstrate comparable accuracy than existing MVF models and potential advantages in low-to-moderate myopia, and thus provide a novel nomogram for postoperative refractive error prediction and lens power calculation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.