ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Machine learning-based prediction of anatomical outcome after idiopathic macular hole surgery.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Code-free automated machine learning for OCT-based classification of vitreoretinal interface diseases.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2026Article
- Automated measurement of the minimum macular hole diameter based on optical coherence tomography images.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- AI-Based Visual Prognosis in Full-Thickness Macular Hole Surgery Using the ILM Flap Technique.Beyoglu eye journal · 2026Article
- Supervised machine learning statistical models for visual outcome prediction in macular hole surgery: a single-surgeon, standardized surgery study.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
- Machine Learning and Optical-Coherence-Tomography-Derived Radiomics Analysis to Predict the Postoperative Anatomical Outcome of Full-Thickness Macular Hole.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Preoperative OCT Characteristics Contributing to Prediction of Postoperative Visual Acuity in Eyes with Macular Hole.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Novel Artificial Intelligence-Based Assessment of Imaging Biomarkers in Full-Thickness Macular Holes: Preliminary Data from a Pivotal Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- A feasibility study for objective evaluation of visual acuity based on pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials and other related visual parameters with machine learning algorithm.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Predicting Visual Improvement After Macular Hole Surgery: A Combined Model Using Deep Learning and Clinical Features.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo develop a machine learning (ML) model for the prediction of the idiopathic macular hole (IMH) status at 1 month after vitrectomy and internal limiting membrane peeling (VILMP) surgery.
methodsA total of 288 IMH eyes from four ophthalmic centers were enrolled. All eyes underwent optical coherence tomography (OCT) examinations upon admission and one month after VILMP. First, 1,792 preoperative macular OCT parameters and 768 clinical variables of 256 eyes from two ophthalmic centers were used to train and internally validate ML models. Second, 224 preoperative macular OCT parameters and 96 clinical variables of 32 eyes from the other two centers were utilized for external validation. To fulfill the purpose of predicting postoperative IMH status (i.e., closed or open), five ML algorithms were trained and internally validated by the ten-fold cross-validation method, while the best-performing algorithm was further tested by an external validation set.
resultsIn the internal validation, the mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of the five ML algorithms were 0.882-0.951. The AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the best-performing algorithm (i.e., random forest, RF) were 0.951, 0.892, 0.973, and 0.904, respectively. In the external validation, the AUC of RF was 0.940, with an accuracy of 0.875, a specificity of 0.875, and a sensitivity of 0.958.
conclusionsBased on the preoperative OCT parameters and clinical variables, our ML model achieved remarkable accuracy in predicting IMH status after VILMP. Therefore, ML models may help optimize surgical planning for IMH patients in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.