Observational studyBMC ophthalmology2025
Artificial intelligence in predicting macular hole surgery outcomes: a focus on optical coherence tomography parameters.
Observational study in BMC ophthalmology, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Vitreoretinal Surgery: A Systematic Review of Current Applications and Future Directions.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
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 evaluate the predictive performance of optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based indices and artificial intelligence (AI) using a Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) model and compare them with traditional logistic regression in forecasting anatomical success following macular hole (MH) surgery.
methodsThis retrospective observational study included 51 eyes of 51 patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy for idiopathic MH. Preoperative OCT measurements of macular hole index (MHI), traction hole index (THI), hole form factor (HFF), basal hole diameter (BHD), and minimum hole diameter (MHD) were recorded. GPT-based AI predictions were generated using masked input data. A logistic regression model was developed with the same variables. Predictive performance was assessed using accuracy, area under the curve (AUC), positive predictive value (POPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and Kappa statistics.
resultsAnatomical success was achieved in 72.5% of cases. MHI, THI, and HFF were significantly higher in the successful group (p < 0.0001). GPT achieved an accuracy of 77.0% and AUC of 0.770, with perfect POPV (1.000) but low NPV (0.452). Logistic regression outperformed GPT, achieving an accuracy of 84.3%, an AUC of 0.759, a higher NPV (0.800), and better agreement (Kappa 0.568 vs. 0.392). BHD and MHD showed poor predictive power (AUC 0.291).
conclusionOCT-derived indices, especially MHI, THI, and HFF, effectively predict MH surgery outcomes. Logistic regression based on actual patient data demonstrated superior predictive performance compared to GPT. AI models hold potential but require further development, integration of multimodal data, and validation before clinical application.
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.