Back

Machine Learning-based Prediction of LASIK Console Inputs for Aspheric Planning (Q-factor, Defocus, Astigmatism): A Translational Methods Study

garnier, s.

2025-12-19 ophthalmology
10.64898/2025.12.09.25341758 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeAspheric planning in laser refractive surgery remains difficult: surgeons often rely on empirical nomo-grams or simple linear regression for defocus and astigmatism, while console Q-factor modulation yields a variably predictable effect on asphericity and an inconsistent cross-effect on defocus. This translational methods proof-of-concept frames planning as supervised prediction of console-programmable inputs (de-focus, astigmatism, Q-factor) and evaluates competing models; it is not a clinical effectiveness study. MethodsWe analyzed an anonymized, retrospective, single-platform dataset of 2,448 complete-case treatments. Multi-output regressors (linear and nonlinear) were trained and compared using prespecified metrics (R2, MAE/MSE) and residual-distribution visualization/calibration. Actuator-response checks related programmed inputs to changes in defocus (Z20) and primary spherical aberration (Z40). External validation used a temporally later, device-shift cohort (n=147). ResultsLinear regression predicted defocus and astigmatism well (e.g., defocus R2=0.98) but degraded for Q-factor (R2=0.47), whereas nonlinear models improved Q-factor error and calibration. Actuator-response analyses showed strong coupling for defocus input (R2=0.97), moderate coupling of Q-factor to {Delta}Z40 (R2=0.51), and a weak Q[->]defocus cross-effect (R2=0.12). On external validation, the best model generalized: Defocus MAE 0.22 D (R2=0.98) and Q-factor MAE 0.21 (R2=0.81). ConclusionsSupervised nonlinear multi-output models achieve lower error and better calibration for Q-factor than linear baselines, supporting a metric-driven pathway toward more reliable control of low-order refractive targets and primary asphericity. Potential clinical implications include tissue sparing, improved contrast, and near-vision gains. Prospective, human-in-the-loop evaluation with safety and patient-reported endpoints is warranted.

Published in Journal of Refractive Surgery · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.