Deep Learning–Based Prediction of Refractive Error Using Photorefraction Images Captured by a Smartphone: Model Development and Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurately predicting refractive error in children is crucial for detecting amblyopia, which can lead to permanent visual impairment, but is potentially curable if detected early. Various tools have been adopted to more easily screen a large number of patients for amblyopia risk. OBJECTIVE: For efficient screening, easy access to screening tools and an accurate prediction algorithm are the most important factors. In this study, we developed an automated deep learning-based system to predict the range of refractive error in children (mean age 4.32 years, SD 1.87 years) using 305 eccentric photorefraction images captured with a smartphone. METHODS: Photorefraction images were divided into seven classes according to their spherical values as measured by cycloplegic refraction. RESULTS: The trained deep learning model had an overall accuracy of 81.6%, with the following accuracies for each refractive error class: 80.0% for ≤-5.0 diopters (D), 77.8% for >-5.0 D and ≤-3.0 D, 82.0% for >-3.0 D and ≤-0.5 D, 83.3% for >-0.5 D and <+0.5 D, 82.8% for ≥+0.5 D and <+3.0 D, 79.3% for ≥+3.0 D and <+5.0 D, and 75.0% for ≥+5.0 D. These results indicate that our deep learning-based system performed sufficiently accurately. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the potential of precise smartphone-based prediction systems for refractive error using deep learning and further yielded a robust collection of pediatric photorefraction images.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".