Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36976155›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2023

MAEPI and CIR: New Metrics for Robust Evaluation of the Prediction Performance of AI-Based IOL Formulas.

Tingyang Li, Joshua D Stein, Nambi Nallasamy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Tingyang LiDepartment of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Joshua D SteinKellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Nambi NallasamyDepartment of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

Michigan Vision Clinician Scientist Development ProgramK12EY022299 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Abigail Fahim, DAVID N ZACKS · 2013 to 2026
$6.3M
Personalized Forecasting of Disease Trajectory for Patients with Open Angle GlaucomaR01EY026641 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LAVIERI-WILLIAMS, MARIEL SOFIA, STEIN, JOSHUA D · 2016 to 2020
$2.9M
NEI NIH HHS K12 EY022299NEI NIH HHS R01 EY026641
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a class of new metrics for evaluating the performance of intraocular lens power calculation formulas robust to issues that can arise with AI-based methods. Methods: The dataset consists of surgical information and biometry measurements of 6893 eyes of 5016 cataract patients who received Alcon SN60WF lenses at University of Michigan's Kellogg Eye Center. We designed two types of new metrics: the MAEPI (Mean Absolute Error in Prediction of Intraocular Lens [IOL]) and the CIR (Correct IOL Rate) and compared the new metrics with traditional metrics including the mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error, and standard deviation. We evaluated the new metrics with simulation analysis, machine learning (ML) methods, as well as existing IOL formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, PearlDGS, and SRK/T). Results: Results of traditional metrics did not accurately reflect the performance of overfitted ML formulas. By contrast, MAEPI and CIR discriminated between accurate and inaccurate formulas. The standard IOL formulas received low MAEPI and high CIR, which were consistent with the results of the traditional metrics. Conclusions: MAEPI and CIR provide a more accurate reflection of the real-life performance of AI-based IOL formula than traditional metrics. They should be computed in conjunction with conventional metrics when evaluating the performance of new and existing IOL formulas. Translational Relevance: The proposed new metrics would help cataract patients avoid the risks caused by inaccurate AI-based formulas, whose true performance cannot be determined by traditional metrics.

Indexed as

CataractLenses, IntraocularArtificial IntelligenceHumansOptics and PhotonicsRefraction, OcularRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36976155
PMCPMC10064919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.