Artificial Intelligence–Based Prediction of Subjective Refraction and Clinical Determinants of Prediction Error

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> Subjective refraction is the clinical gold standard but is time-consuming and examiner-dependent. Most artificial intelligence (AI)-based approaches rely on specialized imaging or biometric data not routinely available. This study aimed to predict subjective refraction using only routine, non-cycloplegic autorefraction and keratometric data and to identify factors associated with reduced prediction accuracy. <b>Methods</b>: This retrospective study included 1856 eyes from 1006 patients. A multi-output histogram gradient-boosting model predicted subjective spherical equivalent, cylindrical power, and astigmatic axis. Performance was evaluated on an independent test dataset using R<sup>2</sup> and mean absolute error, with circular statistics for axis prediction. Prediction failure was assessed using clinically relevant tolerance thresholds (sphere/cylinder ≤ 0.50 D; axis ≤ 10°) and multivariable logistic regression. <b>Results:</b> The model achieved high accuracy for spherical and cylindrical prediction (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.987 and 0.933; MAE = 0.126 D and 0.137 D). Astigmatic axis prediction demonstrated strong circular agreement (ρ = 0.898), with a mean absolute angular error of 4.65° (median, 0.96°). Axis errors were higher in eyes with low cylinder magnitude (<0.75 D) and oblique astigmatism. In multivariable analysis, steeper keratometry (K2; OR = 7.25, 95% CI 1.62-32.46, <i>p</i> = 0.010) and greater objective cylindrical power (OR = 2.79, 95% CI 1.87-8.94, <i>p</i> = 0.032) were independently associated with poor prediction. <b>Conclusions:</b> A machine-learning model based solely on routine, non-cycloplegic autorefractor and keratometric measurements can accurately estimate subjective refraction, supporting AI as a complementary decision-support tool rather than a replacement for conventional subjective refraction.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2026-01-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16020331
Primary Topic
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Artificial Intelligence–Based Prediction of Subjective Refraction and Clinical Determinants of Prediction Error

Ozlem Candan, Gözde Orman, Irem Saglam, Ayşe Burcu et al.
Diagnostics
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
article

Artificial Intelligence–Based Prediction of Subjective Refraction and Clinical Determinants of Prediction Error

Ozlem Candan, Gözde Orman, Irem Saglam, Ayşe Burcu, Nurten Unlu, Yusuf Candan
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> Subjective refraction is the clinical gold standard but is time-consuming and examiner-dependent. Most artificial intelligence (AI)-based approaches rely on specialized imaging or biometric data not routinely available. This study aimed to predict subjective refraction using only routine, non-cycloplegic autorefraction and keratometric data and to identify factors associated with reduced prediction accuracy. <b>Methods</b>: This retrospective study included 1856 eyes from 1006 patients. A multi-output histogram gradient-boosting model predicted subjective spherical equivalent, cylindrical power, and astigmatic axis. Performance was evaluated on an independent test dataset using R<sup>2</sup> and mean absolute error, with circular statistics for axis prediction. Prediction failure was assessed using clinically relevant tolerance thresholds (sphere/cylinder ≤ 0.50 D; axis ≤ 10°) and multivariable logistic regression. <b>Results:</b> The model achieved high accuracy for spherical and cylindrical prediction (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.987 and 0.933; MAE = 0.126 D and 0.137 D). Astigmatic axis prediction demonstrated strong circular agreement (ρ = 0.898), with a mean absolute angular error of 4.65° (median, 0.96°). Axis errors were higher in eyes with low cylinder magnitude (<0.75 D) and oblique astigmatism. In multivariable analysis, steeper keratometry (K2; OR = 7.25, 95% CI 1.62-32.46, <i>p</i> = 0.010) and greater objective cylindrical power (OR = 2.79, 95% CI 1.87-8.94, <i>p</i> = 0.032) were independently associated with poor prediction. <b>Conclusions:</b> A machine-learning model based solely on routine, non-cycloplegic autorefractor and keratometric measurements can accurately estimate subjective refraction, supporting AI as a complementary decision-support tool rather than a replacement for conventional subjective refraction.

DiagnosticsVol. 16(2)
Ministry of Health (TR), University of Health Science (KH), Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi (TR), Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (TR), University of Health Sciences Antigua (AG)
Openalex Percentile: Top 84%
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.