ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Prediction of retinopathy of prematurity development and treatment need with machine learning models.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated diagnosis of plus form and early stages of ROP using deep learning models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- AutoGluon-based interpretable machine learning for clinical risk stratification of retinopathy of prematurity in very preterm infants.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for diagnosis of keratoconus using Scheimpflug based corneal tomography.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of risk prediction models for retinopathy of prematurity in preterm infants.Biomedical reports · 2025Article
- Neonatal retinal hemorrhage and retinopathy of prematurity: a critical review of current practices and future directions.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the effectiveness of machine learning (ML) models in predicting the occurrence of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and treatment need.
methodsFour ML models were created using 49 parameters known within the first 24 h post-birth and obtained during the initial screening examination, encompassing demographic, maternal, clinical, and neonatal intensive care unit-related data. The models' performances were assessed using five machine learning (ML) classifier algorithms: logistic regression (LR), decision tree (DT), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). Performance metrics were calculated, and the top ten parameters with the highest predictive value were identified.
resultsIn the cohort of 355 preterm infants, Model I, predicting ROP development using birth data, achieved a balanced accuracy of 80%, with gestational age (GA), birth weight (BW) and mean corpuscular volume (MCV) as the top predictive parameters. Model II, predicting treatment-requiring ROP using birth data, exhibited a balanced accuracy of 81%. Key predictive parameters included low GA, BW, 1-minute and 5-minute APGAR scores, and low erythrocyte counts. For Model III, predicting ROP using the first screening examination data, and Model IV, predicting treatment-requiring ROP using the same data, the accuracy values were 80% and 66%, respectively, with BW, daily weight gain, total O2 support duration, and platelet/lymphocyte ratio emerged as the most significant predictive parameters in both models.
conclusionThis study demonstrates the potential of ML models to predict ROP development and treatment need. Incorporating clinical and intensive care-related parameters can enhance ROP screening and clinical decision-making.
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.