ArticleScientific reports2025
Fast and accurate visual acuity prediction based on optical aberrations and machine learning.
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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.