ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Development of a machine learning model to predict low vision aid fitting for visually impaired patients.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: At present, the fitting of low-vision aids (LVA) for patients globally necessitates the intervention of highly skilled ophthalmologists and certified rehabilitation specialists. To mitigate this limitation, we employed machine learning algorithms to develop an artificial intelligence (AI)-based model for automated LVA fitting assistance. Patients and Methods: Clinical characteristics and diagnostic data from patients with low vision in southeastern China were collected between October 26, 2015, and October 6, 2021, to establish the training and test datasets. We developed and compared three machine learning models-Random Forest (RF), Deep Neural Network (DNN), and Logistic Regression (LR)-to predict prescriptions for three LVA categories selected based on compliance with the World Health Organization's basic specifications for assistive products: Distant Optical Visual aids (DOV), Near Electronic Visual aids (NEV), and Near Optical Visual aids (NOV). Hyperparameter optimization was conducted through four rounds of internal cross-validation. Following model training, the best-performing model was identified and subsequently validated on external data to assess its predictive accuracy and sensitivity. Results: The dataset comprised a total of 1,241 patients diagnosed with low vision. Our model displayed satisfactory performance in LVA fitting when evaluated on the test set. Comparative analysis revealed the RF model as the optimal choice, achieving area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.93 for DOV, 0.83 for NEV, and 0.91 for NOV. Furthermore, feature importance analysis derived from the RF model weights indicated that patient age, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA of the left eye), and consultation year were the predominant factors influencing LVA fitting decisions across all three aid categories, while visual disability grade specifically impacted DOV prescriptions. In external validation involving 112 prospective cases, the model demonstrated performance comparable to that of a mid-career ophthalmologist (5 years' experience). Conclusion: This study identified significant associations between clinical characteristics and LVA prescription patterns. Leveraging historical LVA fitting data, we developed a machine learning-based decision support system capable of predicting optimal fittings for the three fundamental LVA categories. The proposed tool demonstrates potential for clinical application by generating data-driven prescription recommendations.
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.