ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2025
Predicting visual acuity of treated ocular trauma based on pattern visual evoked potentials by machine learning models.
Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-based analysis of visual electrophysiological signals for clinical interpretation support.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop effective machine learning models that analyze pattern visual evoked potentials (PVEPs) to predict the stabilized visual acuity (VA) of patients with treated ocular trauma. Methods: This experiment included 260 patients (220 males, average age 42.54 years) with unilateral ocular trauma. Four different machine learning algorithms, namely, support vector regression (SVR), Bayesian ridge (BYR), random forest regression (RFG), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), were used to predict best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) values. Various ophthalmic parameters were input into the above algorithms for model training, and the performance of the algorithms was analyzed from the difference between the prediction value and the ground truth. Among the BCVA measured at least 6 months after injury was set as the ground truth. The best-performing model was further developed by tuning different parameter combinations. Results: All models achieved high diagnostic performance, with accuracy values ranging from 0.7875 to 0.8133. The XGBoost model predicted BCVA values with the lowest mean absolute error (MAE), at 0.1598 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR); the lowest root mean square error (RMSE), at 0.2402 logMAR; and the highest accuracy, at 0.8959. Conclusion: Promising outcomes in BCVA prediction were achieved by the PVEP-trained machine learning models, which will be helpful in the clinical evaluation of patients after ocular trauma.
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.