ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Uncovering predictors of myopia in youth: a secondary data analysis using a machine learning approach.
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.
- Diagnostic challenges in high myopia: identification of sight-threatening complications and the role of artificial intelligence.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Myopia is a multifactorial condition driven by an interplay of genetic predisposition and environmental triggers. This study aims to harmonize and analyze risk predictors from two distinct datasetsone historical and clinical, the other contemporary and behavioralto develop an integrated framework for myopia risk prediction. Methods: We analyzed two datasets: the Orinda Longitudinal Study of Myopia (OLSM), a 1995 US cohort (n≈500) with detailed ocular biometrics (e.g., spherical equivalent refraction, axial length) and lifestyle factors, and a 2022-2023 Chinese cross-sectional study (n=100,000) highlighting modern behaviors (e.g., screen time, posture). We employed multiple machine learning modelsincluding logistic regression, Explainable Boosting Machine (EBM), gradient boosting decision trees (GBDT) on OLSM, and deep neural networks (DNN) and XGBoost on the Chinese datasetto identify key predictors. Model interpretability was assessed using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). We also tested three ensemble strategies (sequential, averaging, transfer learning) to merge insights across the structurally divergent datasets. Results: Both datasets confirmed parental myopia as a universal risk factor and time spent outdoors as a protective factor. In the OLSM dataset, spherical equivalent refraction and parental myopia were the top predictors, with models achieving an AUC of up to 0.92. In the Chinese dataset, the DNN model achieved 71% accuracy, identifying screen time, posture, and parental history as major risk factors. Cross-dataset integration via transfer learning proved most effective, successfully amplifying features like outdoor activity and posture while retaining core behavioral predictors like screen time. This approach bridged the clinical depth of OLSM with the granular, modern lifestyle insights from the Chinese dataset. Discussion: Our analysis confirms the multifactorial nature of myopia, blending historical biological mechanisms with contemporary behavioral drivers. The study demonstrates a scalable strategy for global myopia risk prediction by adaptively integrating diverse datasets. While not yet a turnkey clinical tool, this work lays the groundwork for future multimodal risk-prediction frameworks that can bridge era-specific biases and harness machine learning to capture the evolving profile of myopia risk.
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.