Wiktor Stopyra, Oleksiy Voytsekhivskyy, Andrzej Grzybowski
{"title":"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。","authors":"Wiktor Stopyra, Oleksiy Voytsekhivskyy, Andrzej Grzybowski","doi":"10.1016/j.ajo.2024.10.033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare 7 AI-based IOL power calculation formulas in extremely long eyes DESIGN: : Retrospective accuracy and validity analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>SETTING: Kyiv Clinical Ophthalmology Hospital Eye Microsurgery Center, Ukraine STUDY POPULATION: : Patients with highly myopic eyes, who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification OBSERVATION PROCEDURES: Prior to cataract surgery IOL power was calculated. 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. Post-surgery IOL power calculations were performed utilizing the following formulas: Hill-RBF 3.0, Kane, PEARL-DGS, Ladas Super Formula AI (LSF AI), Hoffer QST, Karmona and Zhu-Lu.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>root mean square absolute error (RMSAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 D RESULTS: : Forty eight eyes with axial length exceeding 30.00 mm were studied. Hill-RBF 3.0 yielded the lowest RMSAE (0.788) with statistical superiority only over Karmona (0.956, p=0.021). In terms of MedAE, outcomes obtained by Hoffer QST (0.442) and Hill-RBF (0.490) were statistically significant vs LSF AI (0.800, p=0.013, p=0.008, respectively). The highest percentage of eyes with PE 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 vs LSF AI (27.08%) and Karmona (39.58%), and Hoffer QST vs LSF AI.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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).</p>","PeriodicalId":7568,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of 7 artificial intelligence based intraocular lens power calculation formulas in extremely long Caucasian eyes: Short title: AI-based IOL calculation in extra-long eyes.\",\"authors\":\"Wiktor Stopyra, Oleksiy Voytsekhivskyy, Andrzej Grzybowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajo.2024.10.033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare 7 AI-based IOL power calculation formulas in extremely long eyes DESIGN: : Retrospective accuracy and validity analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>SETTING: Kyiv Clinical Ophthalmology Hospital Eye Microsurgery Center, Ukraine STUDY POPULATION: : Patients with highly myopic eyes, who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification OBSERVATION PROCEDURES: Prior to cataract surgery IOL power was calculated. 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. Post-surgery IOL power calculations were performed utilizing the following formulas: Hill-RBF 3.0, Kane, PEARL-DGS, Ladas Super Formula AI (LSF AI), Hoffer QST, Karmona and Zhu-Lu.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>root mean square absolute error (RMSAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 D RESULTS: : Forty eight eyes with axial length exceeding 30.00 mm were studied. Hill-RBF 3.0 yielded the lowest RMSAE (0.788) with statistical superiority only over Karmona (0.956, p=0.021). In terms of MedAE, outcomes obtained by Hoffer QST (0.442) and Hill-RBF (0.490) were statistically significant vs LSF AI (0.800, p=0.013, p=0.008, respectively). The highest percentage of eyes with PE 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 vs LSF AI (27.08%) and Karmona (39.58%), and Hoffer QST vs LSF AI.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"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://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2024.10.033\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2024.10.033","RegionNum":1,"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
摘要
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）。
Accuracy of 7 artificial intelligence based intraocular lens power calculation formulas in extremely long Caucasian eyes: Short title: AI-based IOL calculation in extra-long eyes.
Purpose: To compare 7 AI-based IOL power calculation formulas in extremely long eyes DESIGN: : Retrospective accuracy and validity analysis.
Methods: SETTING: Kyiv Clinical Ophthalmology Hospital Eye Microsurgery Center, Ukraine STUDY POPULATION: : Patients with highly myopic eyes, who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification OBSERVATION PROCEDURES: Prior to cataract surgery IOL power was calculated. 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. Post-surgery IOL power calculations were performed utilizing 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 (PE) within ±0.50 D RESULTS: : Forty eight eyes with axial length exceeding 30.00 mm were studied. Hill-RBF 3.0 yielded the lowest RMSAE (0.788) with statistical superiority only over Karmona (0.956, p=0.021). In terms of MedAE, outcomes obtained by Hoffer QST (0.442) and Hill-RBF (0.490) were statistically significant vs LSF AI (0.800, p=0.013, p=0.008, respectively). The highest percentage of eyes with PE 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 vs LSF AI (27.08%) and Karmona (39.58%), and Hoffer QST vs 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).
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
