ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Machine learning classification of cycloplegic refractive status in children and adolescents using non-cycloplegic data across ten provincial-level administrative divisions.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCycloplegic refraction remains the gold standard for assessing refractive error in children, yet its application in large-scale screening is limited. Machine learning offers a promising approach for screening and triage by leveraging non-cycloplegic data for refractive classification.
methodsThis study utilized a multicenter dataset comprising 54,374 participants aged 5–18 years from ten provincial-level administrative divisions (PLADs) across China. We developed and validated four machine learning models (LightGBM, XGBoost, Random Forest, and MLP) and a multinomial logistic regression model as a conventional baseline comparator to classify refractive status (myopia, emmetropia, hyperopia). Model generalizability was evaluated via leave-one-PLAD-out cross-validation. Feature importance, calibration, and age-stratified trend analyses were conducted to assess interpretability and developmental robustness.
resultsAll models achieved excellent discrimination (macro-AUC 0.910–0.913) and maintained stable performance across PLADs (AUC 0.866–0.950). While all ensemble models achieved comparable discrimination (macro-AUC 0.910–0.913), LightGBM demonstrated slightly lower log-loss and more balanced probability calibration. Therefore, it was selected as the primary model for subsequent age-stratified analyses. Key predictive features included non-cycloplegic SE, AL/CR ratio, UCVA, and axial length. Age-stratified evaluation revealed systematic performance improvement from childhood to adolescence, with accuracy increasing from 0.80 (5–8 years) to 0.89 (16–18 years) and AUC peaking at 0.93 (12–15 years). Linear trend analysis confirmed significant age-related enhancement independent of provincial effects.
conclusionsLightGBM-based classification of cycloplegic refractive status from non-cycloplegic optical and biometric data provides a robust, generalizable, and clinically interpretable approach for pediatric vision screening. The model is best positioned as a screening and triage support tool, enabling risk stratification and prioritization for confirmatory cycloplegic refraction rather than replacing it, particularly in large-scale or 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.