ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
VisionMetric Suite for periocular measurement in ophthalmic plastic surgery: a preliminary single-center validation study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objectives: Periocular plastic surgery lacks standardized, objective tools for preoperative planning and postoperative evaluation, currently relying on subjective assessment and manual measurements. This study aims to validate VisionMetric Suite, an artificial intelligence-based automated periocular measurement tool, and compare its performance with manual methods. Methods: We developed VisionMetric Suite based on the dlib library and shape estimation algorithms. The tool automatically measures 60 quantitative periocular parameters. The software was evaluated on 226 frontal facial photographs for recognition rate, processing speed, and user satisfaction. Thirty images were randomly selected to assess the agreement between automated and manual measurements and the repeatability of the AI tool using ICC and Bland-Altman analysis. Clinical utility was demonstrated through a case of left congenital ptosis. Results: The software achieved a recognition rate of 94.7% and an average processing time of 2.8 ± 0.4 s per image. User satisfaction among 10 physicians averaged 4.3/5.0. Agreement between automated and manual measurements showed a mean ICC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.97), and repeatability of repeated AI measurements showed a mean ICC of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92-0.98). Bland-Altman analysis confirmed these findings, and a representative clinical case illustrated the software's practical utility. Conclusions: This preliminary single-center validation study suggests that VisionMetric Suite can serve as a rapid, objective periocular measurement tool with good agreement compared to manual methods, representing an initial step toward automated assessment in ophthalmic plastic surgery.
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.