Dynamic Structural Recovery Parameters Enhance Prediction of Visual Outcomes After Macular Hole Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to introduce novel dynamic structural parameters and evaluate their integration within a multimodal deep learning (DL) framework for predicting postoperative visual recovery in patients with idiopathic full-thickness macular hole (iFTMH). Methods: We utilized a publicly available longitudinal optical coherence tomography (OCT) dataset at five stages (preoperative, 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months). A stage-specific segmentation model delineated related structures, and an automated pipeline extracted quantitative, composite, qualitative, and dynamic features. Binary logistic regression models, constructed with and without dynamic parameters, assessed their incremental predictive value for best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). A multimodal DL model combining clinical variables, OCT-derived features, and raw OCT images was developed and benchmarked against regression models. Results: The segmentation model achieved high accuracy across all time points (mean Dice ≥ 0.89). Univariate and multivariate analyses identified base diameter, ellipsoid zone integrity, and macular hole area as significant BCVA predictors (P < 0.05). Incorporating dynamic recovery rates consistently improved logistic regression area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), especially at the 3-month follow-up. The multimodal DL model outperformed logistic regression, yielding higher AUCs and overall accuracy at each stage. The difference is as high as 0.12, demonstrating the complementary value of raw image volume and dynamic parameters. Conclusions: Integrating dynamic parameters into the multimodal DL model significantly enhances the accuracy of predictions. This fully automated process therefore represents a promising clinical decision support tool for personalized postoperative management in macular hole surgery. Translational Relevance: The integration of dynamic OCT-derived structural parameters into the multimodal DL framework enables personalized prediction of visual outcomes after macular hole surgery.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".