Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 5, 2025
Development of an Individual-Tree Basal Area Increment Model using a Linear Mixed-Effects Approach
Published on: July 3, 2020
Evaluating the prediction accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3.0 formula using a heteroscedastic statistical method
Maria Tsessler1, Shir Cohen, Li Wang
1From the Department of Ophthalmology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center and the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel (Tsessler, Cohen, Zadok, Abulafia); Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas (Wang, Koch).
Purpose:
To evaluate the accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3 formula, with and without direct measurements of total corneal power, using a heteroscedastic statistical method for analysis.
Setting:
Department of Ophthalmology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Design:
Retrospective, consecutive case series.
Methods:
Records of consecutive patients who underwent routine cataract surgery between February 2018 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The prediction accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3.0 formula was compared with that of the Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Kane, Olsen, and SRK/T formulas, based on biometry measurements by swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) with standard keratometry (K), SS-OCT with total keratometry (TK), and an optical low-coherence reflectometer (OLCR). Statistical analysis was applied according to a heteroscedastic statistical method with SD of prediction errors as the main parameter for formula performance.
Results:
The study included 153 eyes of 153 patients. The SD values that were obtained by Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.266 to 0.285 diopters [D]) were significantly lower compared with those by Hill-RBF 2.0 (0.290 to 0.309 D), Hoffer Q (0.387 to 0.407 D), Holladay 1 (0.367 to 0.385 D), Holladay 2 (0.386 to 0.401 D), and SRK/T (0.377 to 0.399 D) formulas (P < .036). The prediction accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3.0 was similar across the SS-OCT (K), SS-OCT (TK), and OLCR methods of measurement (P > .51).
Conclusions:
The Hill-RBF 3.0 was more accurate than the Hill-RBF 2.0 and older generation formulas and had similar prediction accuracy compared with new generation formulas. The use of TK did not provide significant improvement to its prediction accuracy.
Related Concept Videos
01:11Residuals and Least-Squares Property
If the observed data point lies above the line, the residual is positive, and the line underestimates the actual data value for y. If the observed data point lies below the line, the residual is negative, and the line overestimates the actual data value for y.
The process of fitting the best-fit...
01:19Variation
When independent and dependent variables are plotted on a scatter plot, the slope of a line is a value that describes the rate of change between the two...
01:13Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
01:03Prediction Intervals
However, the point estimate is most likely not the exact value of the population parameter, but close to it. After calculating point estimates, we construct interval estimates, called confidence intervals or prediction intervals. This prediction interval comprises a range of values unlike the point estimate and is a better predictor of the observed sample value, y.
01:19Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...
01:11Regression Analysis
In regression analysis, a regression equation is determined based on the line of best fit– a line that best fits the data points plotted in a graph. This line is also called the regression line. The algebraic equation for the regression line is called the regression equation. It is represented as: