ArticleBeyoglu eye journal2026
AI-Based Visual Prognosis in Full-Thickness Macular Hole Surgery Using the ILM Flap Technique.
Article in Beyoglu eye journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study evaluated the clinical utility of a multimodal large language model-based artificial intelligence (AI) model in predicting postoperative visual outcomes following full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) surgery using the inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 45 patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy for FTMH at a tertiary eye care center between January 2021 and December 2023. Preoperative optical coherence tomography (OCT) images, demographic data, and clinical parameters were analyzed using the AI model to predict best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at four postoperative time points. The predicted BCVA values were then compared with actual clinical outcomes. Results: Preoperatively, the mean AI-predicted BCVA was 1.13±0.20 logMAR compared with the actual value of 1.24±0.33 logMAR (p=0.192). At 6 months, the predicted BCVA was 0.65±0.20 logMAR versus the actual value of 0.67±0.25 logMAR (p=0.528), and at 12 months, it was 0.47±0.17 logMAR versus 0.55±0.27 logMAR (p=0.155). However, at 7 days postoperatively, the model significantly overestimated visual impairment, predicting 1.37±0.28 logMAR versus the actual value of 1.07±0.33 logMAR (p<0.001). Spearman correlation analysis showed the strongest association between AI-predicted and actual BCVA at 6 months (r Conclusion: These findings demonstrate the model's potential as a supportive tool for visual outcome prediction after FTMH surgery. The AI platform showed clinically relevant predictive performance for preoperative and later postoperative visual outcomes after FTMH surgery, particularly at 6 and 12 months, but was less reliable in the early postoperative period.
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.