Cargando…

Machine learning-based prediction of anatomical outcome after idiopathic macular hole surgery

BACKGROUND: To develop a machine learning (ML) model for the prediction of the idiopathic macular hole (IMH) status at 1 month after vitrectomy and internal limiting membrane peeling (VILMP) surgery. METHODS: A total of 288 IMH eyes from four ophthalmic centers were enrolled. All eyes underwent opti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xiao, Yu, Hu, Yijun, Quan, Wuxiu, Zhang, Bin, Wu, Yuqing, Wu, Qiaowei, Liu, Baoyi, Zeng, Xiaomin, Lin, Zhanjie, Fang, Ying, Hu, Yu, Feng, Songfu, Yuan, Ling, Cai, Hongmin, Yu, Honghua, Li, Tao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8184483/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34164464
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-8065
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: To develop a machine learning (ML) model for the prediction of the idiopathic macular hole (IMH) status at 1 month after vitrectomy and internal limiting membrane peeling (VILMP) surgery. METHODS: A total of 288 IMH eyes from four ophthalmic centers were enrolled. All eyes underwent optical coherence tomography (OCT) examinations upon admission and one month after VILMP. First, 1,792 preoperative macular OCT parameters and 768 clinical variables of 256 eyes from two ophthalmic centers were used to train and internally validate ML models. Second, 224 preoperative macular OCT parameters and 96 clinical variables of 32 eyes from the other two centers were utilized for external validation. To fulfill the purpose of predicting postoperative IMH status (i.e., closed or open), five ML algorithms were trained and internally validated by the ten-fold cross-validation method, while the best-performing algorithm was further tested by an external validation set. RESULTS: In the internal validation, the mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of the five ML algorithms were 0.882–0.951. The AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the best-performing algorithm (i.e., random forest, RF) were 0.951, 0.892, 0.973, and 0.904, respectively. In the external validation, the AUC of RF was 0.940, with an accuracy of 0.875, a specificity of 0.875, and a sensitivity of 0.958. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the preoperative OCT parameters and clinical variables, our ML model achieved remarkable accuracy in predicting IMH status after VILMP. Therefore, ML models may help optimize surgical planning for IMH patients in the future.