Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40493108›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025

Exploring Machine Learning Models for Vault Safety in ICL Implantation: A Comparative Analysis of Regression and Classification Models.

Qing Zhang, Qi Li, Zhilong Yu, Ruibo Yang, Emmanuel Eric Pazo, Yue Huang, Hui Liu, Chen Zhang, Salissou Moutari, Shaozhen Zhao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Qing Zhang *Tianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Qi Li *Tianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Zhilong YuTianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Ruibo YangTianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Emmanuel Eric PazoTianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Yue HuangTianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Hui LiuTianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Chen ZhangTianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Salissou MoutariSchool of Mathematics and Physics, Queen's University Belfast, Britain and Northern Ireland, Belfast, UK. s.moutari@qub.ac.uk.
Shaozhen ZhaoTianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China. zhaosz1997@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7646-2699

Funding

Research on the Nanomedicine Treatment Plan for Diabetic Cataract Prevention and Treatment 21ZXGWSY00060
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAccurate prediction of postoperative vault height following implantable collamer lens (ICL) V4c implantation is critical for minimizing complications and achieving optimal surgical outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the performance of machine learning models in predicting postoperative vault height, focusing on both regression and classification approaches.

methodsThis retrospective study analyzed biometric and demographic data, including anterior chamber depth, white-to-white distance, and ICL size, among other variables. Regression and classification models were developed using gradient boosting, random forest, and CatBoost algorithms. Regression models predicted vault height as a continuous variable, while classification models categorized vault heights into binary and multi-class tasks. Model performance was evaluated using metrics including the mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE) for regression models, while accuracy, F1-score, and area under the curve (AUC) were used for classification models.

resultsRegression models demonstrated moderate predictive performance, with random forest delivering the best performance (MAE: 134.0 µm, RMSE: 171.3 µm, Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.45). On the other hand, classification models exhibited greater clinical applicability than regression approaches. For the binary classification task (vault < 250 µm vs. ≥ 250 µm), gradient boosting achieved the highest overall performance, with accuracy of 89 ± 12% and an AUC of 0.89. In the task of predicting vault > 750 µm vs. ≤ 750 µm, random forest emerged as the most effective classifier, achieving accuracy of 86 ± 9% and an AUC of 0.88. In multi-class classification, models demonstrated superior performance in predicting intermediate vault heights (250 µm ≤ vault ≤ 750 µm). Random forest achieved the highest accuracy of 94.6% in this category. However, all models faced challenges in accurately classifying extreme vault categories.

conclusionsClassification models, particularly gradient boosting and random forest, demonstrated strong potential for predicting clinically significant vault categories, enabling personalized surgical planning and improved risk management. While regression models offered moderate insights, their limitations suggest that classification approaches are better suited for clinical applications. Future research should focus on enhancing model accuracy for extreme vault prediction and integrating advanced techniques, such as ensemble deep learning, to further refine outcomes.

Indexed as

CatBoostGradient boostingICL V4cMachine learningRandom forest

Identifiers

PMID40493108
PMCPMC12271049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.