Smartphone-Based Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Prediction for Eyelid Measurements: Algorithm Development and Observational Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Margin reflex distance 1 (MRD1), margin reflex distance 2 (MRD2), and levator muscle function (LF) are crucial metrics for ptosis evaluation and management. However, manual measurements of MRD1, MRD2, and LF are time-consuming, subjective, and prone to human error. Smartphone-based artificial intelligence (AI) image processing is a potential solution to overcome these limitations. OBJECTIVE: We propose the first smartphone-based AI-assisted image processing algorithm for MRD1, MRD2, and LF measurements. METHODS: This observational study included 822 eyes of 411 volunteers aged over 18 years from August 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. Six orbital photographs (bilateral primary gaze, up-gaze, and down-gaze) were taken using a smartphone (iPhone 11 Pro Max). The gold-standard measurements and normalized eye photographs were obtained from these orbital photographs and compiled using AI-assisted software to create MRD1, MRD2, and LF models. RESULTS: The Pearson correlation coefficients between the gold-standard measurements and the predicted values obtained with the MRD1 and MRD2 models were excellent (r=0.91 and 0.88, respectively) and that obtained with the LF model was good (r=0.73). The intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated excellent agreement between the gold-standard measurements and the values predicted by the MRD1 and MRD2 models (0.90 and 0.84, respectively), and substantial agreement with the LF model (0.69). The mean absolute errors were 0.35 mm, 0.37 mm, and 1.06 mm for the MRD1, MRD2, and LF models, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement were -0.94 to 0.94 mm for the MRD1 model, -0.92 to 1.03 mm for the MRD2 model, and -0.63 to 2.53 mm for the LF model. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the first smartphone-based AI-assisted image processing algorithm for eyelid measurements. MRD1, MRD2, and LF measures can be taken in a quick, objective, and convenient manner. Furthermore, by using a smartphone, the examiner can check these measurements anywhere and at any time, which facilitates data collection.
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 | 0.001 | 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".