当前位置: X-MOL 学术Am. J. Ophthalmol. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
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.
American Journal of Ophthalmology ( IF 4.1 ) Pub Date : 2024-11-11 , DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2024.10.033
Wiktor Stopyra,Oleksiy Voytsekhivskyy,Andrzej Grzybowski

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).

中文翻译:


7 种基于人工智能的人工晶状体屈光力计算公式在极长白种人眼中的准确性:简称:超长眼中基于 AI 的人工晶状体计算。



目的 在极长的眼睛中比较 7 种基于 AI 的 IOL 屈光力计算公式 设计: : 回顾性准确性和有效性分析。方法 设置: 乌克兰基辅临床眼科医院眼显微外科中心 研究人群: : 高度近视眼的患者,接受超声乳化术 观察程序: 在白内障手术之前计算 IOL 屈光力。植入 IOL 的屈光力是从 SRK/T、Holladay 2 或 Barrett Universal II 的结果中随机选择的。超声乳化术后 3 个月,测量屈光度。使用以下公式进行术后 IOL 屈光力计算:Hill-RBF 3.0、Kane、PEARL-DGS、Ladas Super Formula AI (LSF AI)、Hoffer QST、Karmona 和 Zhu-Lu。主要结局指标 均方根绝对误差 (RMSAE) 、中位绝对误差 (MedAE) 和预测误差 (PE) 在 ±0.50 D 内的眼睛百分比结果: : 研究了 48 只眼轴长超过 30.00 毫米的眼睛。Hill-RBF 3.0 产生最低的 RMSAE (0.788),统计优势仅高于 Karmona (0.956,p=0.021)。就 MedAE 而言,通过 Hoffer QST (0.442) 和 Hill-RBF (0.490) 获得的结局与 LSF AI (分别为 0.800,p=0.013,p=0.008) 相比具有统计学意义。Hill-RBF 3.0 实现了 ±0.50 D 内 PE 的眼睛百分比最高,Kane 和 Hoffer QST (各 54.17%)具有统计学意义,如下所示:Hill-RBF 和 Kane 与 LSF AI (27.08%) 和 Karmona (39.58%),以及 Hoffer QST 与 LSF AI。结论 所有测试公式的真实度均具有相当的真实性,其中 Hill-RBF 3.0 比 Karmona (RMSAE) 更准确,而 LSF AI 不如 Hoffer QST 和 Hill-RBF 3.0 (MedAE) 准确。
更新日期:2024-11-11
down
wechat
bug