ArticleScientific reports2025
Interpretable machine learning models for predicting childhood myopia from school-based screening data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Binocular Non-Cycloplegic Ocular Parameters for Modeling Cycloplegic SER in Children.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Gender differences in higher-order aberrations and refractive error in Japanese school children: the Kyoto Childhood Refractive Error Study (KRES).Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- EGS-Net: a knowledge-augmented machine learning framework for predicting future high-myopia risk from longitudinal school-screening trajectories.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- SSR-stacking: a hybrid GNN-ensemble framework for high-myopia classification under simulated baseline-SE missingness.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for myopia: Current update and concern.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Myopia Prediction Using Machine Learning: An External Validation Study.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
This study assessed the efficacy of various diagnostic indicators and machine learning (ML) models in predicting childhood myopia. A total of 2,365 children aged 5-12 years were included in the study. The participants were exposed to non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction tests, along with ocular biometric assessments. Cycloplegia was induced using 1% cyclopentolate eye drops, followed by cycloplegic refraction testing. Myopia prevalence was 11.2% (95% confidence interval: 9.9-12.5%). The spherical equivalent (SE) before and after cycloplegia varied with age, significantly differing by 0.5D in children < 10 years (P < 0.05). The most effective single-indicator screening diagnostic methods were axial length/ corneal curvature radius (AL/CCR) and screening myopia, with area under curve (AUC) of 0.919 (95% CI: 0.899 to 0.939) and 0.911 (95% CI: 0.890 to 0.932). In the multi-indicator joint diagnostic model, the best diagnostic model using non-cycloplegic SE, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), AL, and age was the Extreme Gradient Boosting model, with an AUC of 0.983 and an accuracy of 0.970. The best diagnostic model using non-cycloplegic SE, AL/CCR, UCDVA, and age was the Random Forest model, with an AUC of 0.981 and an accuracy of 0.975. The AL/CCR demonstrated superior performance in predicting childhood myopia. The ML-based multi-indicator joint diagnostic predictive model enhances the accuracy of childhood myopia diagnosis, screening, and intervention.
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.