ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2022
Artificial intelligence improves accuracy, efficiency, and reliability of a handheld infrared eccentric autorefractor for adult refractometry.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retinoscopes: Past and present.World journal of methodology · 2024Article
- Comparison of the PlusoptiX A16 and vision screener V100.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Research on classification method of high myopic maculopathy based on retinal fundus images and optimized ALFA-Mix active learning algorithm.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence-aided diagnosis and treatment in the field of optometry.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Vault predicting after implantable collamer lens implantation using random forest network based on different features in ultrasound biomicroscopy images.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the accuracy, efficiency, and reliability of a handheld infrared eccentric autorefractor (hICA) with artificial intelligence (AI) by comparing its refraction measurements to those recorded using hICA and a clinical table-mounted automatic refractor (TAR).
methodsA cross-sectional study using three optometers, including hICA with or without AI and TAR, for refractometry of adults (aged 19-49 years old) with no signs of ocular disease or trauma in the absence of cycloplegia. Right and left eye refraction data were recorded, including the spherical equivalent (SE), diopter of spherical power (DS), diopter of cylindrical power (DC) decomposed into vectors J0 and J45, and measurement times. To avoid analytical difficulties associated with the interdependence of observations between eyes from the same individual, the Generalized Estimation Equation was used to compare the SE, DS, J0 and J45 measurements, and the times thereof, among the different groups. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient were used to evaluate correlations among the measurements recorded by the three different instruments. Bland-Altman were used to analyze the precision of the equipment by the agreement.
resultsA total of 70 patients (140 eyes; mean age: 31.37y; range: 19-49y) were assessed using refractometry. In a brightly lit environment, there was no significant difference between the mean SE recorded using TAR and that recorded using hICA with AI or without AI (both
conclusionFor the normal human eyes, AI may improve the accuracy, efficiency, and reliability of measurements recorded using hICA in various light environments.
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.