ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Accuracy assessment of artificial intelligence IOL calculation formulae: utilizing the heteroscedastic statistics and the Eyetemis Analysis Tool.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. 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.
- Early Real-World Clinical Outcomes and Astigmatism Vector Analysis of Toric Intraocular Lenses for High Astigmatism (≥2.0 D).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Prediction of Seven Artificial Intelligence-Based Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Medium-Long Caucasian Eyes.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyse the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven intraocular (IOL) calculation formulae, together with established formulae using the heteroscedastic methodology and the Eyetemis Analysis Tool.
methodsData from 404 eyes who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification with implantation of the SN60WF IOL were retrospectively reviewed. IOL power calculations were performed using the Barrett Universal II (BUII), EVO 2.0, Hoffer QST, K6, Ladas Super Formula (LSF), Nallasamy, PEARL-DGS and RBF 3.0 formulae. The SD of the prediction error (PE), served as the primary metric for accuracy. The mean absolute deviation (MAD) and the predictability rates within intervals from ±0.25 D to ±1.50 D were also evaluated. The Eyetemis Analysis Tool was used for further validation.
resultsThe SD ranged from 0.468 (Nallasamy) to 0.510 (LSF). The Nallasamy formula had a significantly lower SD than the BUII (0.505, p = 0.025) and K6 (0.489, p = 0.022) formulae. The Nallasamy formula also exhibited the lowest MAD (0.358) with a significant difference compared with the Hoffer QST formula (0.384, p < 0.001). Finally, a significantly higher percentage of eyes achieving ± 0.50 D of the target refraction was seen using the Nallasamy formula (77.19%) compared with the Hoffer QST (71.04%, p = 0.019) and Ladas Super Formula (70.79%, p = 0.030) formulae.
conclusionsThe Nallasamy formula, incorporating AI technology, demonstrated superior accuracy according to the analysis guidelines for PE statistics for non-gaussian datasets recommended by Holladay et al. and the online Eyetemis Analysis Tool.
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.