Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34039562›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2022

Predicting the 10-year risk of cataract surgery using machine learning techniques on questionnaire data: findings from the 45 and Up Study.

Wei Wang, Xiaotong Han, Jiaqing Zhang, Xianwen Shang, Jason Ha, Zhenzhen Liu, Lei Zhang, Lixia Luo, Mingguang He

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. AI in Medical Questionnaires: Scoping ReviewJournal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Wei WangState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5273-3332
Xiaotong HanState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6836-3447
Jiaqing ZhangState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xianwen ShangGuangdong Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Jason HaCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Zhenzhen LiuState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4853-2474
Lei ZhangCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Lixia Luo *State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China mingguang_he@yahoo.com luolixia@gzzoc.com.ORCID 0000-0002-4612-2906
Mingguang He *State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China mingguang_he@yahoo.com luolixia@gzzoc.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6912-2810
Sun Yat-sen University · CNCentre for Eye Research Australia · AUZhengzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsTo investigate the feasibility and accuracy of using machine learning (ML) techniques on self-reported questionnaire data to predict the 10-year risk of cataract surgery, and to identify meaningful predictors of cataract surgery in middle-aged and older Australians.

methodsBaseline information regarding demographic, socioeconomic, medical history and family history, lifestyle, dietary and self-rated health status were collected as risk factors. Cataract surgery events were confirmed by the Medicare Benefits Schedule Claims dataset. Three ML algorithms (random forests [RF], gradient boosting machine and deep learning) and one traditional regression algorithm (logistic model) were compared on the accuracy of their predictions for the risk of cataract surgery. The performance was assessed using 10-fold cross-validation. The main outcome measures were areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs).

resultsIn total, 207 573 participants, aged 45 years and above without a history of cataract surgery at baseline, were recruited from the 45 and Up Study. The performance of gradient boosting machine (AUC 0.790, 95% CI 0.785 to 0.795), RF (AUC 0.785, 95% CI 0.780 to 0.790) and deep learning (AUC 0.781, 95% CI 0.775 to 61 0.786) were robust and outperformed the traditional logistic regression method (AUC 0.767, 95% CI 0.762 to 0.773, all p<0.05). Age, self-rated eye vision and health insurance were consistently identified as important predictors in all models.

conclusionsThe study demonstrated that ML modelling was able to reasonably accurately predict the 10-year risk of cataract surgery based on questionnaire data alone and was marginally superior to the conventional logistic model.

Indexed as

CataractNational Health ProgramsAgedAustraliaHumansMachine LearningMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesdiagnostic tests/investigationepidemiologypublic health

Identifiers

PMID34039562
PMCPMC9606508
OpenAlexW3168665153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.