ArticlePloS one2025
Ensemble machine learning prediction model for clinical refraction using partial interferometry measurements in childhood.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Cycloplegic Refraction Using the Eyerobo Vision Screener: Design-A Cross-Sectional Comparative Device Study.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- The application of artificial intelligence in myopia prediction for children and adolescents: a review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Prediction of Subjective Refraction and Clinical Determinants of Prediction Error.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Predicting Cycloplegic Spherical Equivalent Refraction Among Children and Adolescents Using Non-cycloplegic Data and Machine Learning - China, 2020-2024.China CDC weekly · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop an ensemble machine learning prediction model for clinical refraction in childhood using partial interferometry measurements.
methodsAge, sex, cycloplegic refraction, and partial interferometry data collected within one month were obtained from patients aged 5-16 years, retrospectively. Four ensemble regression models were used to develop prediction models of spherical equivalents (SE) from the collected data. Root mean squared error (RMSE) was used to compare the accuracy among the models. The accuracy of the ensemble models was compared with that of a previously developed multiple linear regression model.
results4156 eyes from 1965 patients (50.3% female) were included. Mean age was 8.4 ± 2.3 years and mean SE was -1.01 ± 2.94 diopters. Mean axial length was 23.63 ± 1.41 mm and mean keratometry reading of flat and steep axis was 43.58 ± 1.40 diopters. Developed ensemble models had accuracy of RMSE 0.800 to 0.829 diopters, which was superior to that of the conventional regression model (1.213 diopters). Simulations with the same biometric parameters showed that female sex was associated more with myopia than that of male sex. Long eyes showed dampened increase in the myopic refraction per unit axial length.
conclusionsRefractive errors can be calculated in the childhood using these ensemble models with ocular biometric parameters. Moreover, the models were able to simulate hypothetical relationships between ocular parameters and SE to understand the nature of clinical refraction.
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.