ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Interpretable machine learning model based on blood parameters for screening high myopia.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. 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
Abstract
objectiveTo develop an interpretable machine learning (ML) model using routine blood parameters for high myopia (HM) screening as a convenient and cost-effective alternative to traditional methods.
methodsThis cross-sectional study enrolled 313 participants (158 HM and 155 non-HM). Blood parameters were comprehensively analysed, and features were selected via univariate analysis and Lasso regression. Eight ML algorithms were trained and validated using the selected features with bootstrap resampling to develop an HM diagnostic model. Model performance was evaluated by area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, F1 score, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA). In addition, parameter optimisation and model validation were conducted using fivefold cross-validation. Feature importance was analysed using Shapley additive explanation (SHAP).
resultsEight key indicators were identified through feature selection, including direct bilirubin (DBIL), total bilirubin (TBIL), albumin (ALB), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), age, glucose (GLU), creatinine (CREA), and uric acid (UA). Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) was found to be the optimal model. In the fivefold cross-validation, the AUC values of the training set, validation set, and test set were 0.954, 0.822, and 0.898, respectively. SHAP analysis was performed to determine the contribution of the eight variables to the model and their relationship with the occurrence of HM. The model demonstrated good calibration and clinical utility, as evidenced by DCA.
conclusionThis study validates the feasibility of a blood-based ML model for screening HM, providing an accessible and interpretable tool for early detection in resource-limited settings.
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.