Accuracy of the Hill-radial basis function method and the Barrett Universal II formula.
Clicks: 318
ID: 92663
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
318 views
46 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #3 of 7 articles by views in european journal of ophthalmology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The aim was to assess the postoperative results of a biometric method using artificial intelligence (Hill-radial basis function 2.0), and data from a modern formula (Barrett Universal II) and the Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical formula.Phacoemulsification and biconvex intraocular lens implantation were performed in 186 cataractous eyes. The diopters of intraocular lens were established with the Hill-radial basis function method, based on biometric data obtained using the Aladdin device. The required diopters of the intraocular lens were also calculated by the Barrett Universal II formula and with the Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical formula. The differences between the manifest postoperative refractive errors and the planned refractive errors were calculated, as well as the percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D of the prediction error. The mean- and the median absolute refractive errors were also determined.The mean age of the patients was 70.13 years (SD = 10.67 years), and the mean axial length was 23.47 mm (range = 20.72-28.78 mm). The percentage of eyes within a prediction error of ±0.5 D was 83.62% using the Hill-radial basis function method, 79.66% with the Barrett Universal II formula, and 74.01% in the case of the Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical formula. The mean- and the median absolute refractive errors were not statistically different.Clinical success was the highest when using the biometric method, based on pattern recognition. The results obtained using Barrett Universal II came a close second. Both methods performed better compared to a traditionally used formula.
| Reference Key |
nemeth2020accuracyeuropean
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Nemeth, Gabor;Modis, Laszlo; |
| Journal | european journal of ophthalmology |
| Year | 2020 |
| DOI |
10.1177/1120672120902952
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.