Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Focusing of Light in the Eye

Focusing of Light in the Eye

Light rays enter the eye through the cornea, a transparent dome-shaped tissue that is the eye's outermost layer. The cornea bends or refracts, light rays traveling to the pupil. The shape of the cornea determines how much of the light is bent and whether the image will be focused correctly on the retina at the back of the eye. Once the light has passed through both refraction layers, it converges into a single focal point onto a small area. This is where photoreceptors start transforming...

Prediction Intervals

Prediction Intervals

The interval estimate of any variable is known as the prediction interval. It helps decide if a point estimate is dependable.
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.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Effect of Gabapentin Pretreatment on Hyperalgesia in Older Patients Undergoing Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Journal of clinical medicine·2026

Same author

Clinically grounded retinal representation learning from minimal supervision.

Scientific reports·2026

Same author

Intraocular Lens Positional Instability and Refractive Prediction Error after Cataract Surgery in Eyes with Retinitis Pigmentosa: A Comparative Study.

Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO·2026

Same author

Gut microbiota transfer from autoimmune dry eye mice imprints stereotypic B cell receptor repertoires in the lacrimal gland and induces disease.

Frontiers in immunology·2026

Same author

Multicenter Validation of Clinical Sepsis Phenotypes.

JAMA network open·2026

Same author

Retinal Arteriosclerosis in a Large Health Screening Cohort: Associations with Systemic Vascular Comorbidities and Stroke in Young Adults.

Biomedicines·2026

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 4, 2025

Scanning Light Scattering Profiler SLPS Based Methodology to Quantitatively Evaluate Forward and Backward Light Scattering from Intraocular Lenses

Scanning Light Scattering Profiler SLPS Based Methodology to Quantitatively Evaluate Forward and Backward Light Scattering from Intraocular Lenses

Published on: June 6, 2017

Evaluation of prediction errors in nine intraocular lens calculation formulas using an explainable machine learning

Richul Oh¹, Joo Youn Oh^1,2,3, Hyuk Jin Choi^1,2,3,4

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Korea.

BMC Ophthalmology

|December 19, 2024

Summary

This study found that current ocular biometric variables explain little of the prediction errors in many intraocular lens (IOL) formulas, suggesting new variables may improve cataract surgery accuracy.

Keywords:

Explainable artificial intelligence Intraocular lens LightGBM Prediction error

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Advancing Understanding of Age-Related Lens Stiffness Changes

Author Spotlight: Advancing Understanding of Age-Related Lens Stiffness Changes

Published on: April 5, 2024

Development of an In Vitro Ocular Platform to Test Contact Lenses

Development of an In Vitro Ocular Platform to Test Contact Lenses

Published on: April 6, 2016

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 4, 2025

Scanning Light Scattering Profiler SLPS Based Methodology to Quantitatively Evaluate Forward and Backward Light Scattering from Intraocular Lenses

Scanning Light Scattering Profiler SLPS Based Methodology to Quantitatively Evaluate Forward and Backward Light Scattering from Intraocular Lenses

Published on: June 6, 2017

Author Spotlight: Advancing Understanding of Age-Related Lens Stiffness Changes

Author Spotlight: Advancing Understanding of Age-Related Lens Stiffness Changes

Published on: April 5, 2024

Development of an In Vitro Ocular Platform to Test Contact Lenses

Development of an In Vitro Ocular Platform to Test Contact Lenses

Published on: April 6, 2016

Area of Science:

Ophthalmology
Biomedical Engineering
Machine Learning

Background:

Cataract surgery outcomes depend on accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations.
Prediction errors (PEs) in IOL formulas can lead to suboptimal visual results.
Understanding the relationship between ocular biometry and PEs is crucial for improving IOL formula accuracy.

Purpose of the Study:

To evaluate the relationship between prediction errors (PEs) and ocular biometric variables in cataract surgery.
To assess the explanatory power of ocular biometry for PEs across nine different intraocular lens (IOL) formulas.
To utilize an explainable machine learning model to analyze these relationships.

Main Methods:

Retrospective analysis of 1,430 cataract surgeries using Tecnis 1-piece IOL (ZCB00).
Calculation of predicted refraction using nine distinct IOL formulas (Barrett Universal II, Cooke K6, EVO V2.0, Haigis, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Kane, SRK/T, PEARL-DGS).
Application of a LightGBM machine learning model and SHAP values to determine the explanatory power of ocular biometrics for PEs.

Main Results:

The SRK/T formula showed the highest explanatory power (R²=0.231), while the Kane formula had the lowest (R²=0.021).
Most new-generation IOL formulas demonstrated low R² values, indicating limited explanation of PEs by current ocular biometric variables.
Smaller SHAP values correlated with lower R² values, reinforcing the limited impact of these variables on prediction errors for certain formulas.

Conclusions:

Existing ocular biometric variables have low explanatory power for prediction errors in several new-generation IOL formulas, suggesting these formulas may be nearing optimization.
The introduction of novel ocular biometric variables holds potential for reducing PEs and enhancing the precision of cataract surgery outcomes.
Further research into new biometric parameters is warranted to improve IOL calculation accuracy and patient satisfaction.