Accuracy of 7 Artificial Intelligence–Based Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Extremely Long Caucasian Eyes

IF 4.2 1区医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY American Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1016/j.ajo.2024.10.033

Wiktor Stopyra , Oleksiy Voytsekhivskyy , Andrzej Grzybowski

{"title":"Accuracy of 7 Artificial Intelligence–Based Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Extremely Long Caucasian Eyes","authors":"Wiktor Stopyra , Oleksiy Voytsekhivskyy , Andrzej Grzybowski","doi":"10.1016/j.ajo.2024.10.033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To compare 7 artificial intelligence (AI)–based intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in extremely long eyes.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Retrospective accuracy and validity analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Kyiv Clinical Ophthalmology Hospital Eye Microsurgery Center, Ukraine.</div></div><div><h3>Study Population</h3><div>Patients with highly myopic eyes, who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification.</div></div><div><h3>Observation Procedures</h3><div>IOL power was calculated before cataract surgery. The power of the implanted IOL was randomly selected from the outcomes of SRK/T, Holladay 2, or Barrett Universal II. Three months after phacoemulsification, refraction was measured. Postsurgery IOL power calculations were performed using the following formulas: Hill-RBF 3.0, Kane, PEARL-DGS, Ladas Super Formula AI (LSF AI), Hoffer QST, Karmona, and Zhu-Lu.</div></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><div>Root mean square absolute error (RMSAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 D.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Forty-eight eyes with axial length >30.00 mm were studied. Hill-RBF 3.0 yielded the lowest RMSAE (0.788) with statistical superiority only over Karmona (0.956, <em>P</em> = .021). In terms of MedAE, outcomes obtained by Hoffer QST (0.442) and Hill-RBF (0.490) were statistically significant compared with LSF AI (0.800, <em>P</em> = .013 and <em>P</em> = .008, respectively). The highest percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 D was achieved by Hill-RBF 3.0, Kane, and Hoffer QST (54.17% each) statistically significant as follows: both Hill-RBF and Kane compared with LSF AI (27.08%) and Karmona (39.58%), and Hoffer QST compared with LSF AI.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>All tested formulas demonstrated comparable trueness, with Hill-RBF 3.0 being more accurate than Karmona (RMSAE), and LSF AI being less accurate than Hoffer QST and Hill-RBF 3.0 (MedAE).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7568,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"271 ","pages":"Pages 337-346"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002939424005191","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To compare 7 artificial intelligence (AI)–based intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in extremely long eyes.

Design

Retrospective accuracy and validity analysis.

Setting

Kyiv Clinical Ophthalmology Hospital Eye Microsurgery Center, Ukraine.

Study Population

Patients with highly myopic eyes, who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification.

Observation Procedures

IOL power was calculated before cataract surgery. The power of the implanted IOL was randomly selected from the outcomes of SRK/T, Holladay 2, or Barrett Universal II. Three months after phacoemulsification, refraction was measured. Postsurgery IOL power calculations were performed using the following formulas: Hill-RBF 3.0, Kane, PEARL-DGS, Ladas Super Formula AI (LSF AI), Hoffer QST, Karmona, and Zhu-Lu.

Main Outcome Measures

Root mean square absolute error (RMSAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 D.

Results

Forty-eight eyes with axial length >30.00 mm were studied. Hill-RBF 3.0 yielded the lowest RMSAE (0.788) with statistical superiority only over Karmona (0.956, P = .021). In terms of MedAE, outcomes obtained by Hoffer QST (0.442) and Hill-RBF (0.490) were statistically significant compared with LSF AI (0.800, P = .013 and P = .008, respectively). The highest percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 D was achieved by Hill-RBF 3.0, Kane, and Hoffer QST (54.17% each) statistically significant as follows: both Hill-RBF and Kane compared with LSF AI (27.08%) and Karmona (39.58%), and Hoffer QST compared with LSF AI.

Conclusion

All tested formulas demonstrated comparable trueness, with Hill-RBF 3.0 being more accurate than Karmona (RMSAE), and LSF AI being less accurate than Hoffer QST and Hill-RBF 3.0 (MedAE).

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

基于人工智能的 7 种眼球晶体内功率计算公式在超长白种人眼睛中的准确性：简称：基于人工智能的超长眼人工晶体计算。

目的：比较 7 种基于人工晶体植入术的超长眼人工晶体植入术功率计算公式：回顾性准确性和有效性分析：地点：乌克兰基辅临床眼科医院眼显微手术中心研究人群：：接受顺利乳化手术的高度近视眼患者：白内障手术前计算人工晶体功率。从 SRK/T、Holladay 2 或 Barrett Universal II 的结果中随机选择植入人工晶体的功率。乳化手术三个月后，测量屈光度。手术后人工晶体功率计算采用以下公式：主要结果指标：均方根绝对误差（RMSAE）、中位数绝对误差（MedAE）和预测误差（PE）在±0.50 D以内的眼睛百分比结果：：研究了 48 只轴向长度超过 30.00 mm 的眼睛。Hill-RBF 3.0 的 RMSAE 最低（0.788），在统计学上仅优于 Karmona（0.956，P=0.021）。在MedAE方面，Hoffer QST（0.442）和Hill-RBF（0.490）与LSF AI（分别为0.800、p=0.013、p=0.008）相比具有统计学意义。Hill-RBF3.0、Kane 和 Hoffer QST 的 PE 值在±0.50 D 以内的眼睛比例最高（各为 54.17%），其统计学意义如下：Hill-RBF 和 Kane 与 LSF AI（27.08%）和 Karmona（39.58%）相比，以及 Hoffer QST 与 LSF AI 相比：结论：所有测试公式的准确性相当，Hill-RBF 3.0 的准确性高于 Karmona（RMSAE），LSF AI 的准确性低于 Hoffer QST 和 Hill-RBF 3.0（MedAE）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

American Journal of Ophthalmology 医学-眼科学

CiteScore

9.20

自引率

7.10%

发文量

406

审稿时长

36 days

期刊介绍： The American Journal of Ophthalmology is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication that welcomes the submission of original, previously unpublished manuscripts directed to ophthalmologists and visual science specialists describing clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations. Published monthly since 1884, the full text of the American Journal of Ophthalmology and supplementary material are also presented online at www.AJO.com and on ScienceDirect. The American Journal of Ophthalmology publishes Full-Length Articles, Perspectives, Editorials, Correspondences, Books Reports and Announcements. Brief Reports and Case Reports are no longer published. We recommend submitting Brief Reports and Case Reports to our companion publication, the American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports. Manuscripts are accepted with the understanding that they have not been and will not be published elsewhere substantially in any format, and that there are no ethical problems with the content or data collection. Authors may be requested to produce the data upon which the manuscript is based and to answer expeditiously any questions about the manuscript or its authors.