Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41419746›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Fast and accurate visual acuity prediction based on optical aberrations and machine learning.

A Sierra, I Baoud-Ould-Haddi, S Fernández-Núñez, J A Gómez-Pedrero, M García-Montero, N Garzón, J Alonso, E Pascual, J Vargas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

A SierraDepartamento de Óptica, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Plaza de Ciencias 1, 28040, Madrid, Spain. aguesier@ucm.es.
I Baoud-Ould-HaddiDepartamento de Optometría y Visión, Facultad de Óptica y Optometría, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, C. de Arcos de Jalón, 118, 28037, Madrid, Spain.
S Fernández-NúñezDepartamento de Óptica, Facultad de Óptica y Optometría, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, C. de Arcos de Jalón, 118, 28037, Madrid, Spain.
J A Gómez-PedreroDepartamento de Óptica, Facultad de Óptica y Optometría, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, C. de Arcos de Jalón, 118, 28037, Madrid, Spain.
M García-MonteroDepartamento de Optometría y Visión, Facultad de Óptica y Optometría, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, C. de Arcos de Jalón, 118, 28037, Madrid, Spain.
N GarzónDepartamento de Optometría y Visión, Facultad de Óptica y Optometría, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, C. de Arcos de Jalón, 118, 28037, Madrid, Spain.
J AlonsoDepartamento de Óptica, Facultad de Óptica y Optometría, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, C. de Arcos de Jalón, 118, 28037, Madrid, Spain.
E PascualClinical Research Department, Indizen Optical Technologies, 28002, Madrid, Spain.
J VargasDepartamento de Óptica, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Plaza de Ciencias 1, 28040, Madrid, Spain. jvargas@ucm.es.

Funding

Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación CPP2021-008616
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this work, we propose three machine learning-based methods for predicting visual acuity (VA). Two methods utilize regression trees (LSBoost and XGBoost), and the third employs a neural network that classifies simulated aberrated optotypes as "recognized" or "unrecognized". The overall VA is estimated by replicating the clinical procedure in which the subject reads optotypes and the VA is determined based on their responses. Here, the neural network acts as a substitute for the subject. Data were collected from a clinical trial involving 135 subjects providing for each sample 36 Zernike coefficients, amplitudes of accommodation, age, and VA values. Evaluation of the regression tree models demonstrates that LSBoost outperformes XGBoost in prediction accuracy, especially when incorporating amplitudes of accommodation. However, XGBoost is faster in computation time, making it more suitable for large datasets and design of visual compensations. The neural network, while achieving high optotype recognition accuracy, is less accurate in VA prediction due to its reliance on synthetic data and complex simulation processes, which requires large processing times. Overall, LSBoost offers the best performance in terms of accuracy, while XGBoost provides faster computation. These findings highlight the suitability of regression tree-based models for VA prediction using tabulated data.

Indexed as

Machine LearningVisual AcuityAccommodation, OcularAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerAmplitude of accommodationNeural networksRegression treesVisual acuity (VA)XGBoostZernike coefficients

Identifiers

PMID41419746
PMCPMC12717265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.