ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Multicenter evaluation of machine and deep learning methods to predict glaucoma surgical outcomes.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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.
- Postoperative Risk and Climate Exposure: A Retrospective Study of Incisional Glaucoma Surgery Outcomes.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To develop machine learning (ML) and neural network (NN) models to predict glaucoma surgical outcomes, including intraocular pressure (IOP), use of ocular antihypertensive medications, and need for additional glaucoma surgery, using preoperative electronic health records (EHR) from a large multicenter cohort. Methods: This cohort study included 9,386 patients who underwent glaucoma surgery across 10 institutions in the Sight Outcomes Research Collaborative (SOURCE). All patients had at least 1 year of follow-up and 2 postoperative visits with IOP measurements. Models were trained using preoperative EHR features to predict surgical failure, defined as any of the following: IOP remaining above 80% of preoperative value beyond the immediate postoperative period, increased postoperative glaucoma medications, or need for additional glaucoma surgery. Model performance was evaluated on two test sets: an internal holdout set from sites seen during training and an external holdout set. Results: Of 13,173 surgeries, 8,743 (66.4%) met failure criteria. The best-performing model for overall surgical failure prediction was a one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1D-CNN) with AUROC of 76.4% and accuracy of 71.6% on the internal test set. The top-performing classical ML model was random forest (AUROC 76.2%, accuracy 72.1%). Prediction performance was highest for IOP-related failure (AUROC 82%), followed by increased medication use (80%) and need for an additional surgery (68%). AUROC declined slightly (2-4%) on the external test set. Conclusion: ML and DL models can predict glaucoma outcomes using preoperative EHR data. Translational relevance: prediction models may support clinical decision-making by identifying glaucoma patients at risk of poor postoperative outcomes.
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.