ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2024
Evaluation of an artificial intelligence-based intraocular lens calculator: AI-based IOL-optimized formula.
Article in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 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.
- Accuracy of new-generation intraocular lens formulas in IOL power calculation for cataract extraction combined with vitrectomy.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Refractive Outcomes of Cataract Surgery Using Zeiss Artificial Intelligence Calculator versus Barrett Universal II and Kane.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Development and Clinical Accuracy of the New Paraxial Ray-Tracing IOL Power Formula (VRT) Based on the Thin Lens Assumption.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: opportunities, challenges, and ethical considerations.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Review
- Article
- Advances in IOL calculations in patients with keratoconus.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the ZEISS AI IOL Calculator (ZEISS AI) and compare its accuracy in refractive prediction to the Barrett Universal II (BUII) and Kane formulas.
settingCullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
designRetrospective case series.
methodsThe ZEISS AI IOL Calculator (ZEISS AI) is an artificial intelligence (AI) based IOL-optimized formula. The refractive prediction errors (PEs) were calculated in the entire dataset and subgroups of short eyes (axial length (AL) ≤ 22.5 mm) and long eyes (AL ≥ 25.0 mm). The standard deviation (SD), root-mean-square absolute error (RMSAE), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D of PEs were calculated. Values with ZEISS AI were compared to those from Barrett Universal II (BUII) and Kane. Advanced statistical methods were applied using R.
resultsA dataset of 10,838 eyes was included. Compared to ZEISS AI, BUII produced significantly greater SDs, RMSAEs, and MAEs in the whole group and short eyes, and the Kane had greater SD, RMSAE, and MAE in short eyes (all adjusted P<0.05); the BUII had significantly lower percentages of eyes within ±0.50 D of PEs in the whole group (80.0% vs 81.2%) and in short eyes (71.3% vs. 76.1%), and the Kane had lower percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D of PEs in short eyes (71.9% vs. 76.1%) (all adjusted P<0.05).
conclusionThe ZEISS AI IOL Calculator had superior performance compared to the BUII and Kane formulas, especially in short eyes.
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.