ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Optimizing Predictive Models for Distance and Near Vision Outcomes in Presbyopic Surgery Using Machine Learning.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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.
- Optimizing Predictive Models for Distance and Near Vision Outcomes in Presbyopic Surgery Using Machine Learning.Translational vision science & technology · 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
Purpose: To develop predictive models for postoperative visual acuity-both near and distance, monocular and binocular-and a composite outcome metric, distance-corrected visual gain (DCVG), in patients undergoing presbyopic corneal refractive surgery. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 914 eyes from 457 patients treated with PresbyMAX who completed 6 months of follow-up. Machine learning algorithms, including Random Forest regression and classification models, were applied to predict corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), both measured using the same distance correction. Feature importance was evaluated using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) and partial dependence plots (PDPs). Results: Binocular models outperformed monocular in predictive accuracy, and CDVA was more predictable than DCNVA. A clinical trade-off was observed whereby improvements of up to three lines in DCNVA could be achieved without significant CDVA loss. The optimal planned addition ranged between +1.50 D and +2.25 D, balancing near and distance vision outcomes. Patients 45 to 56 years of age showed greater potential for near vision gain without compromising distance vision. The DCVG metric effectively quantified overall visual benefits, with only a minority of cases showing a net loss. Conclusions: Predictive modeling combined with the DCVG metric enables personalized surgical planning by identifying key factors influencing outcomes. This approach supports better management of the visual trade-offs inherent in presbyopic refractive surgery. Translational Relevance: Machine learning-based prediction models and the DCVG metric facilitate individualized clinical decision-making, improving patient counseling and optimizing the balance between near and distance vision in presbyopic treatment.
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.