ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Impact of the Minimization of Standard Deviation Before Zeroization of the Mean Bias on the Performance of IOL Power Formulas.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A two-step formula constant optimization strategy for minimal standard deviation and zero mean prediction error in IOL power calculation.Acta ophthalmologica · 2026Article
- Studying the added effect of sum-of-segments biometry to modern intraocular lens power calculation formulas for short eyes.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: In cataract surgery, accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations are crucial for optimal postoperative refractive outcomes. This study explores the impact of prioritizing the reduction of the standard deviation (SD) of prediction errors before mean prediction error (PE) adjustment on IOL calculation formula precision and accuracy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 4885 eyes from 2611 patients, all implanted with the same IOL model, comparing four traditional IOL power calculation formulas: SRK/T, Holladay 1, Haigis, and Hoffer Q. We introduced new constants aiming to minimize the SD of PE (new_const) against traditionally optimized constants (classic_const), using a heteroscedastic statistical method for comparison. Validation of precision improvements used a secondary dataset of 262 eyes from 132 patients. Results: We observed significant reductions in mean absolute error (MAE) across training and test sets for Hoffer Q, Holladay, and Haigis formulas, indicating accuracy enhancements. Optimized constants significantly reduced SDs for Haigis from 0.3255 to 0.3153 and for Hoffer Q from 0.3521 to 0.3387. These optimizations also increased the proportion of eyes achieving PE within ±0.25 D. SRK/T showed improved SD from 0.3596 to 0.3585. However, Holladay 1 showed minimal change with no significant improvement. In the test dataset, significant reductions in SD were observed for Haigis and Hoffer Q. Conclusions: Prioritizing SD minimization before adjusting mean PE significantly improves the precision of selected IOL power formulas, enhancing postoperative refractive outcomes. The effectiveness varies among formulas, underscoring the need for formula-specific adjustments. Translational Relevance: The study presents a novel two-step approach for optimizing IOL power calculations.
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.