ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2023
MAEPI and CIR: New Metrics for Robust Evaluation of the Prediction Performance of AI-Based IOL Formulas.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advanced Artificial-Intelligence-Based Jiang Formula for Intraocular Lens Power in Congenital Ectopia Lentis.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- CatSkill: Artificial Intelligence-Based Metrics for the Assessment of Surgical Skill Level from Intraoperative Cataract Surgery Video Recordings.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.