ArticleArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia2025
Intraocular lens calculation formula developed using artificial intelligence for ultrasonic biometry.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe developed an artificial intelligence program for calculating intraocular lenses and analyzed its accuracy rate via ultrasonic biometry. This endeavor is aimed at enhancing precision and efficacy in the selection of intraocular lenses, particularly in cases where optical biometry is unavailable.
methodsData was collected from the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, which included cases of phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation, in which the lens selection was based on ultrasonic biometry. The program, implemented in Python, Java, and PHP, employs the ridge regression method. Two design options were developed: a basic model, which uses only keratometry variables (K1 and K2), axial size and final target refraction in the spherical equivalent, and an advanced model, which incorporates preoperative refraction and the patient's age. The Universal Barrett II formula was used to compare both models.
resultsThe sample consisted of 486 eyes from 313 patients, with 350 eyes used for program training and 136 for program validation. The spherical equivalent hit rates, with a variation of ±0.5 D, were 86% and 87.5% for the basic and advanced models, respectively, with no statistically significant difference between them. With the Barret Universal II formula, the success rate was 69%, which was significantly different from the values of the two aforementioned models (p<0.0001). The system was better for medium and long eyes but worse for short eyes (<=22.00 mm).
conclusionThe developed artificial intelligence program was superior to the Barrett formula in terms of performance, in the general context and within the subgroup of patients with longer eyes. This innovation can considerably contribute to the selection of intraocular lenses, particularly in cases where optical biometry is unavailable.
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.