ArticlePloS one2025
AI-driven Eyeball Exposure Rate (EER) analysis: A useful tool for assessing ptosis surgery effectiveness.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Symmetry of the Upper Eyelid Following Bilateral Blepharoptosis Repair Using a Minimally Invasive Conjoint Fascial Sheath Suspension Technique.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in oculoplastics: Novel applications and future prospects.Taiwan journal of 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPtosis surgery outcomes are measured by one-dimensional metrics like Marginal Reflex Distance (MRD) and Palpebral Fissure Height (PFH) using ImageJ. However, these methods are insufficient to capture the full range of changes post-surgery. Eyeball Exposure Rate (EER) offers a more comprehensive two-dimensional perspective as metric. This study compares AI-based EER measurements with conventional ImageJ methods for assessing outcome of ptosis surgery. Methods: Images from 50 patients (total 100 eyes) taken before and after surgery were analyzed using manual ImageJ and the AI-tool "Anigma-View". Statistical tests assessed the accuracy and consistency of both methods, using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots for comparison.
resultsEER measured by the AI-tool at pre- and post-operation were 58.85% and 75.36%, respectively. Similarly, manual measurements using ImageJ showed an increase from 58.22% to 75.27%. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) between the AI-tool and manual measurements ranged from 0.984 to 0.994, indicating excellent agreement, with the repeated AI-tool demonstrating high reproducibility (ICC = 1). Bland-Altman plots showed excellent agreement between the two methods and reproducibility of AI-based measurements. Additionally, EER improvement was more prominent in the moderate to severe ptosis group with a 45.94% increase, compared to the mild group with 14.39% increase. DISCUSSION: The findings revealed no significant differences between AI-tool and manual methods, suggesting that AI-tool is just as reliable. AI-tool to automate measurements offers efficiency and objectivity, making it a valuable method in clinical fields.
conclusionAI-based EER analysis is accurate and efficient, providing comparable results to manual methods. Its ability to simplify surgical outcome assessments makes it a promising addition to clinical practice. Further exploration of AI in evaluating three-dimensional changes in ptosis surgery could enhance future surgical assessments and outcomes.
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.