Accuracy Improvement of IOL Power Prediction for Highly Myopic Eyes With an XGBoost Machine Learning-Based Calculator

Purpose: To develop a machine learning-based calculator to improve the accuracy of IOL power predictions for highly myopic eyes.Methods: Data of 1,450 highly myopic eyes from 1,450 patients who had cataract surgeries at our hospital were used as internal dataset (train and validate). Another 114 hig...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ling Wei, Yunxiao Song, Wenwen He, Xu Chen, Bo Ma, Yi Lu, Xiangjia Zhu
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-12-01
Series:Frontiers in Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.592663/full
Description
Summary:Purpose: To develop a machine learning-based calculator to improve the accuracy of IOL power predictions for highly myopic eyes.Methods: Data of 1,450 highly myopic eyes from 1,450 patients who had cataract surgeries at our hospital were used as internal dataset (train and validate). Another 114 highly myopic eyes from other hospitals were used as external test dataset. A new calculator was developed using XGBoost regression model based on features including demographics, biometrics, IOL powers, A constants, and the predicted refractions by Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula. The accuracies were compared between our calculator and BUII formula, and axial length (AL) subgroup analysis (26.0–28.0, 28.0–30.0, or ≥30.0 mm) was further conducted.Results: The median absolute errors (MedAEs) and median squared errors (MedSEs) were lower with the XGBoost calculator (internal: 0.25 D and 0.06 D2; external: 0.29 D and 0.09 D2) vs. the BUII formula (all P ≤ 0.001). The mean absolute errors and were 0.33 ± 0.28 vs. 0.45 ± 0.31 (internal), and 0.35 ± 0.24 vs. 0.43 ± 0.29 D (external). The mean squared errors were 0.19 ± 0.32 vs. 0.30 ± 0.36 (internal), and 0.18 ± 0.21 vs. 0.27 ± 0.29 D2 (external). The percentages of eyes within ±0.25 D of the prediction errors were significantly greater with the XGBoost calculator (internal: 49.66 vs. 29.66%; external: 78.28 vs. 60.34%; both P < 0.05). The same trend was in MedAEs and MedSEs in all subgroups (internal) and in AL ≥30.0 mm subgroup (external) (all P < 0.001).Conclusions: The new XGBoost calculator showed promising accuracy for highly or extremely myopic eyes.
ISSN:2296-858X