{"title":"Comparative evaluation of traditional and AI-based intraocular lens power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes.","authors":"Xiaopeng Jiang, Jiangjie Wang, Qingmin Jiang, Xiangyu Zhou, Fei Xia, Meng Gao","doi":"10.1186/s12886-025-04365-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI)-based intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas compared with traditional methods in highly myopic eyes, and to evaluate their performance across varying axial lengths and corneal curvatures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective case series included 115 highly myopic eyes that underwent phacoemulsification with IOL implantation. IOL power was calculated using four conventional formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, Holladay 2, Barrett Universal II) and seven AI-based formulas (Hill-RBF 3.0, Karmona, Hoffer QST, PEARL-DGS, Ladas Super Formula, Kane, HM-ZL). The outcomes were evaluated using standard deviation (SD), assessed with Heteroscedastic test; root-mean-square absolute error (RMSAE), assessed with bootstrap-t method; mean absolute error (MAE), assessed with Friedman test; and the percentage of eyes within ± 0.25 D to ± 1.00 D of prediction error, assessed with Cochran's Q test. Subgroup analyses were performed based on axial length (AL) and corneal curvature (Kmean).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most AI-based formulas-especially Hill-RBF 3.0, PEARL-DGS and Kane-demonstrated higher accuracy than traditional formulas.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, the MAEs of Hill-RBF 3.0, PEARL-DGS, and Kane were significantly lower than that of Holladay 2 (P < 0.05). The SD of PEARL-DGS also differed significantly from Holladay 2 (P < 0.05). In the long axial length group, Hill-RBF 3.0, PEARL-DGS, and Kane showed significantly lower MAEs than Holladay 2 (P < 0.05). In the moderate corneal curvature group, BUⅡ, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, PEARL-DGS, and Kane had significantly lower MAEs than Holladay 2, and the SDs of Hill-RBF 3.0 and PEARL-DGS differed significantly from both Holladay 2 and SRK/T (P < 0.05). Trend lines showed that AI-based formulas exhibited more consistent and stable performance across different AL and K<sub>mean</sub>.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AI-based formulas provide superior refractive prediction in highly myopic eyes compared with traditional methods. Tailored formula selection based on biometric profiles may enhance refractive outcomes in cataract surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":9058,"journal":{"name":"BMC Ophthalmology","volume":"25 1","pages":"507"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12459027/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-025-04365-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI)-based intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas compared with traditional methods in highly myopic eyes, and to evaluate their performance across varying axial lengths and corneal curvatures.
Methods: This retrospective case series included 115 highly myopic eyes that underwent phacoemulsification with IOL implantation. IOL power was calculated using four conventional formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, Holladay 2, Barrett Universal II) and seven AI-based formulas (Hill-RBF 3.0, Karmona, Hoffer QST, PEARL-DGS, Ladas Super Formula, Kane, HM-ZL). The outcomes were evaluated using standard deviation (SD), assessed with Heteroscedastic test; root-mean-square absolute error (RMSAE), assessed with bootstrap-t method; mean absolute error (MAE), assessed with Friedman test; and the percentage of eyes within ± 0.25 D to ± 1.00 D of prediction error, assessed with Cochran's Q test. Subgroup analyses were performed based on axial length (AL) and corneal curvature (Kmean).
Results: Most AI-based formulas-especially Hill-RBF 3.0, PEARL-DGS and Kane-demonstrated higher accuracy than traditional formulas.
Results: Overall, the MAEs of Hill-RBF 3.0, PEARL-DGS, and Kane were significantly lower than that of Holladay 2 (P < 0.05). The SD of PEARL-DGS also differed significantly from Holladay 2 (P < 0.05). In the long axial length group, Hill-RBF 3.0, PEARL-DGS, and Kane showed significantly lower MAEs than Holladay 2 (P < 0.05). In the moderate corneal curvature group, BUⅡ, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, PEARL-DGS, and Kane had significantly lower MAEs than Holladay 2, and the SDs of Hill-RBF 3.0 and PEARL-DGS differed significantly from both Holladay 2 and SRK/T (P < 0.05). Trend lines showed that AI-based formulas exhibited more consistent and stable performance across different AL and Kmean.
Conclusion: AI-based formulas provide superior refractive prediction in highly myopic eyes compared with traditional methods. Tailored formula selection based on biometric profiles may enhance refractive outcomes in cataract surgery.
期刊介绍:
BMC Ophthalmology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of eye disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.