{"title":"Machine Learning-Based Prediction of LASIK Console Inputs for Aspheric Planning (Q-factor, Defocus, Astigmatism): A Translational Methods Study.","authors":"Steven Garnier","doi":"10.3928/1081597X-20260415-02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To frame aspheric laser refractive planning as the supervised prediction of console-programmable inputs (Defocus, Astigmatism, and Q-factor) and to benchmark competing regression models; this is a translational methods proof-of-concept, not a clinical effectiveness study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An anonymized, retrospective, single-platform dataset of 2,448 complete-case treatments was analyzed. Multi-output regressors (linear and nonlinear) were trained and compared using prespecified metrics (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup>, MAE/MSE) and residual-distribution visualization/calibration. Actuator-response checks related programmed inputs to changes in Defocus (Z<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) and primary spherical aberration (Z<sub>4</sub><sup>0</sup>). External validation used a temporally later, device-shift cohort (n = 147).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Linear regression predicted Defocus and astigmatism well (eg, Defocus <i>R</i><sup><i>2</i></sup> = 0.98) but degraded for Q-factor (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.47), whereas nonlinear models improved Q-factor error and calibration. Actuator-response analyses showed strong coupling for Defocus input (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.97), moderate coupling of Q-factor to ΔZ<sub>4</sub><sup>0</sup> (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.51), and a weak Q→Defocus cross-effect (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.12). On external validation, the best model generalized: Defocus MAE 0.22 D (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.98) and Q-factor MAE 0.21 (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.81).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Supervised nonlinear multi-output models achieve lower error and better calibration for Q-factor than linear baselines, supporting a metric-driven pathway toward more reliable control of low-order refractive targets and primary asphericity. Potential clinical implications include tissue sparing, improved contrast, and near-vision gains. Prospective, human-in-the-loop evaluation with safety and patient-reported endpoints is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":16951,"journal":{"name":"Journal of refractive surgery","volume":"42 7","pages":"e719-e728"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20260415-02","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To frame aspheric laser refractive planning as the supervised prediction of console-programmable inputs (Defocus, Astigmatism, and Q-factor) and to benchmark competing regression models; this is a translational methods proof-of-concept, not a clinical effectiveness study.
Methods: An anonymized, retrospective, single-platform dataset of 2,448 complete-case treatments was analyzed. Multi-output regressors (linear and nonlinear) were trained and compared using prespecified metrics (R2, MAE/MSE) and residual-distribution visualization/calibration. Actuator-response checks related programmed inputs to changes in Defocus (Z20) and primary spherical aberration (Z40). External validation used a temporally later, device-shift cohort (n = 147).
Results: Linear regression predicted Defocus and astigmatism well (eg, Defocus R2 = 0.98) but degraded for Q-factor (R2 = 0.47), whereas nonlinear models improved Q-factor error and calibration. Actuator-response analyses showed strong coupling for Defocus input (R2 = 0.97), moderate coupling of Q-factor to ΔZ40 (R2 = 0.51), and a weak Q→Defocus cross-effect (R2 = 0.12). On external validation, the best model generalized: Defocus MAE 0.22 D (R2 = 0.98) and Q-factor MAE 0.21 (R2 = 0.81).
Conclusions: Supervised nonlinear multi-output models achieve lower error and better calibration for Q-factor than linear baselines, supporting a metric-driven pathway toward more reliable control of low-order refractive targets and primary asphericity. Potential clinical implications include tissue sparing, improved contrast, and near-vision gains. Prospective, human-in-the-loop evaluation with safety and patient-reported endpoints is warranted.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Refractive Surgery, the official journal of the International Society of Refractive Surgery, a partner of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, has been a monthly peer-reviewed forum for original research, review, and evaluation of refractive and lens-based surgical procedures for more than 30 years. Practical, clinically valuable articles provide readers with the most up-to-date information regarding advances in the field of refractive surgery. Begin to explore the Journal and all of its great benefits such as:
• Columns including “Translational Science,” “Surgical Techniques,” and “Biomechanics”
• Supplemental videos and materials available for many articles
• Access to current articles, as well as several years of archived content
• Articles posted online just 2 months after acceptance.