ArticleScientific reports2025
Artificial intelligence driven intraocular lens power calculation in extreme axial myopia.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Research on refractive power calculation formula of intraocular lens based on the principle of double thick lens imaging.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is critical in cataract surgery, especially in patients with extreme axial myopia where traditional formulas often yield inaccurate results. This study retrospectively evaluated the accuracy of two AI-driven IOL formulas (Hill-RBF, Kane), the Barrett Universal II formula, and the traditional SRK/T formula in patients with axial lengths ≥ 30.0 mm. Data from 80 eyes of 51 patients treated at the Institute of Science Tokyo were analyzed. Postoperative refractive errors were recalculated, and accuracy was assessed using mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), and median absolute error (MedAE). Statistical analyses included the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and chi-square test. The Kane and Hill-RBF formulas demonstrated significantly lower MAE (0.51 D and 0.52 D, respectively) compared to SRK/T (P < 0.05). MAE of the Barrett Universal II formula was 0.66D, which was not significantly different from SRK/T. In eyes with axial lengths ≥ 32.0 mm, Kane achieved the lowest MAE and MedAE (0.44 D and 0.40 D). Both Kane and Hill-RBF showed lower refractive errors > ± 1.0 D (7.5%) compared to SRK/T (42.5%). AI-driven formulas, particularly Kane and Hill-RBF, significantly improve refractive accuracy in extreme axial myopia. Their clinical adoption may enhance postoperative visual outcomes and reduce the need for corrective interventions.
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.