ArticleOphthalmology science
Deep Imbalanced Regression Model for Predicting Refractive Error from Retinal Photos.
Article in Ophthalmology science. 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.
- Genome-wide association study for refractive error imputed from fundus images via deep learning: a proof-of-concept study.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Beyond convolutions and supervised learning with transformers and representation learning for retinal image analysis.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2026Review
- Prediction of refractive error in adolescents using a multimodal large language model.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Recent studies utilized ocular images and deep learning (DL) to predict refractive error and yielded notable results. However, most studies did not address biases from imbalanced datasets or conduct external validations. To address these gaps, this study aimed to integrate the deep imbalanced regression (DIR) technique into ResNet and Vision Transformer models to predict refractive error from retinal photographs. Design: Retrospective study. Subjects: We developed the DL models using up to 103 865 images from the Singapore Epidemiology of Eye Diseases Study and the United Kingdom Biobank, with internal testing on up to 8067 images. External testing was conducted on 7043 images from the Singapore Prospective Study and 5539 images from the Beijing Eye Study. Retinal images and corresponding refractive error data were extracted. Methods: This retrospective study developed regression-based models, including ResNet34 with DIR, and SwinV2 (Swin Transformer) with DIR, incorporating Label Distribution Smoothing and Feature Distribution Smoothing. These models were compared against their baseline versions, ResNet34 and SwinV2, in predicting spherical and spherical equivalent (SE) power. Main Outcome Measures: Mean absolute error (MAE) and coefficient of determination were used to evaluate the models' performances. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to assess statistical significance between DIR-integrated models and their baseline versions. Results: For prediction of the spherical power, ResNet34 with DIR (MAE: 0.84D) and SwinV2 with DIR (MAE: 0.77D) significantly outperformed their baseline-ResNet34 (MAE: 0.88D; Conclusions: Deep imbalanced regressed-integrated DL models showed potential in addressing data imbalances and improving the prediction of refractive error. These findings highlight the potential utility of combining DL models with retinal imaging for opportunistic screening of refractive errors, particularly in settings where retinal cameras are already in use. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.