ArticlePloS one2024
Predicting postoperative visual acuity in epiretinal membrane patients and visualization of the contribution of explanatory variables in a machine learning model.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Vitreoretinal Surgery: A Systematic Review of Current Applications and Future Directions.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Ectopic inner foveal layer as post pars plana vitrectomy prognostic predictor in eyes with idiopathic epiretinal membrane.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing fever of unknown origin diagnosis: machine learning approaches to predict metagenomic next-generation sequencing positivity.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- A prospective diagnostic model for breast cancer utilizing machine learning to examine the molecular immune infiltrate in HSPB6.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- A Neural Network for the Prediction of the Visual Acuity Gained from Vitrectomy and Peeling for Epiretinal Membrane.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Epiretinal Membrane Care: A Scoping Review.Ophthalmology scienceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to develop a model that can predict the postoperative visual acuity in eyes that had undergone vitrectomy for an epiretinal membrane (ERM). The Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) was used to evaluate the accuracy of the prediction and the contribution of the explanatory variables. Two models were designed to predict the postoperative visual acuity in 67 ERM patients. Model 1 used the age, sex, affected eye, axial length, preoperative visual acuity, Govetto's classification stage, and OCT-derived vector information as features to predict the visual acuity at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Model 2 incorporated the early postoperative visual acuity as an additional variable to predict the visual acuity at 3, and 6 months postoperatively. LightGBM with 100 iterations of 5-fold cross-validation was used to tune the hyperparameters and train the model. This involved addressing multicollinearity and selecting the explanatory variables. The generalized performance of these models was evaluated using the root mean squared error (RMSE) in a 5-fold cross-validation, and the contributions of the explanatory variables were visualized using the average Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values.
resultsThe RMSEs for the predicted visual acuity of Model 1 were 0.14 ± 0.02 logMAR units at 1 month, 0.12 ± 0.03 logMAR units at 3 months, and 0.13 ± 0.04 logMAR units at 6 months. High SHAP values were observed for the preoperative visual acuity and the ectopic inner foveal layer (EIFL) area with significant and positive correlations across all models. Model 2 that incorporated the postoperative visual acuity was used to predict the visual acuity at 3 and 6 months, and it had superior accuracy with RMSEs of 0.10 ± 0.02 logMAR units at 3 months and 0.10 ± 0.04 logMAR units at 6 months. High SHAP values were observed for the postoperative visual acuity in Model 2.
conclusionPredicting the postoperative visual acuity in ERM patients is possible using the preoperative clinical data and OCT images with LightGBM. The contribution of the explanatory variables can be visualized using the SHAP values, and the accuracy of the prediction models improved when the postoperative visual acuity is included as an explanatory variable. Our data-driven machine learning models reveal that preoperative visual acuity and the size of the EIFL significantly influence postoperative visual acuity. Early intervention may be crucial for achieving favorable visual outcomes in eyes with an ERM.
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.