ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2023
Predicting visual acuity with machine learning in treated ocular trauma patients.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and prognosis of ocular trauma: a systematic review.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo predict best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) by machine learning in patients with ocular trauma who were treated for at least 6mo.
methodsThe internal dataset consisted of 850 patients with 1589 eyes and an average age of 44.29y. The initial visual acuity was 0.99 logMAR. The test dataset consisted of 60 patients with 100 eyes collected while the model was optimized. Four different machine-learning algorithms (Extreme Gradient Boosting, support vector regression, Bayesian ridge, and random forest regressor) were used to predict BCVA, and four algorithms (Extreme Gradient Boosting, support vector machine, logistic regression, and random forest classifier) were used to classify BCVA in patients with ocular trauma after treatment for 6mo or longer. Clinical features were obtained from outpatient records, and ocular parameters were extracted from optical coherence tomography images and fundus photographs. These features were put into different machine-learning models, and the obtained predicted values were compared with the actual BCVA values. The best-performing model and the best variable selected were further evaluated in the test dataset.
resultsThere was a significant correlation between the predicted and actual values [all Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC)>0.6]. Considering only the data from the traumatic group (group A) into account, the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) were 0.30 and 0.40 logMAR, respectively. In the traumatic and healthy groups (group B), the lowest MAE and RMSE were 0.20 and 0.33 logMAR, respectively. The sensitivity was always higher than the specificity in group A, in contrast to the results in group B. The classification accuracy and precision were above 0.80 in both groups. The MAE, RMSE, and PCC of the test dataset were 0.20, 0.29, and 0.96, respectively. The sensitivity, precision, specificity, and accuracy of the test dataset were 0.83, 0.92, 0.95, and 0.90, respectively.
conclusionPredicting BCVA using machine-learning models in patients with treated ocular trauma is accurate and helpful in the identification of visual dysfunction.
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.