ArticlePloS one2025
Machine learning models for risk prediction of age-related macular degeneration in Fujian eye study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a retinal disorder that significantly impairs vision. This study investigates various machine learning models for predicting AMD risk, laying the groundwork for further research using big data and determining the most effective predictive model.
methodsUtilizing data from 8211 records with 39 features from the Fujian Eye Study, a cross-sectional epidemiological investigation, several machine learning models were developed and assessed. The models included logistic regression (LR), K-nearest neighbors (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). Data preprocessing, feature selection, and model training were all key components of the study.
resultsAfter evaluating multiple models, the logistic regression model emerged as the most accurate, achieving a balanced accuracy of 0.6364. Among the predictive features, educational background had the highest influence on the model's predictions, with an average SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) value of 0.8199. Other significant factors included outdoor time and left eye spherical equivalent (OSSE), with SHAP values of 0.6474 and 0.6377, respectively.
conclusionThis study confirms that logistic regression is the most effective machine learning model for predicting AMD risk, with educational background identified as the most critical risk factor.
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.