ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Development of risk prediction model for small incision lenticule extraction.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Corneal biomechanical parameters as novel predictors of refractive stability after small incision lenticule extraction.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to identify risk factors associated with small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) surgery and develop a risk prediction model to aid in determining patient suitability for SMILE. Methods: This retrospective study included myopia patients from four medical centers in China, enrolled between January 2021 and December 2023. The data were randomly divided into training and test cohorts at an 8:2 ratio. A random forest (RF) model was developed and optimized using three-fold cross-validation, with feature importance assessed. Results: The study included a total of 2,667 patients, with 2,134 patients in the training cohort and 533 patients in the test cohort. Significant statistical differences were observed in the Belin/Ambrosio Enhanced Ectasia Display and the total deviation value (BAD-D), Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI), Tomographic and Biomechanical Index (TBI), and spherical equivalent between patients suitable for SMILE and those not suitable, in both the training and test cohorts. The univariate analysis identified ten key features relevant to SMILE. The RF model developed from the training data demonstrated high performance, with an accuracy of 96.0% in the validation set and 95.7% in the test set, an F1 score of 0.967, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.976 (95% CI: 0.962-0.990). Conclusion: SMILE is not appropriate for all patients with myopia. The RF model, based on clinical characteristics, showed excellent performance in predicting SMILE suitability and has potential as a valuable tool for clinical decision-making in the future.
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.