For educational and research purposes only. Not a medical device.
External validation

APEX formula accuracy
in real clinical practice

The APEX formula was built on a sample drawn from a clinical base of 42,000 surgeries. On held-out eyes that were not used to develop the formula, APEX matches Kane in accuracy and outperforms the classic formulas.

42 000
surgeries
in the APEX clinical base
76%
of eyes within ±0.5 D
for the table leader
№1
rank by the FPI index
among the compared formulas

Formula comparison

Computation was performed on 960 held-out eyes that were not used to develop the formula. Each formula was computed with its own optimized constant under equal conditions. Kane was included as an external benchmark. Sorted by the FPI index.

Formula MAE (D) MedAE ±0.5 D FPI vs APEX
1APEX 0.348 0.278 76% 0.635 leader
2Kaneexternal 0.352 0.288 75% 0.623 comparable
3PEARL-DGS 0.370 0.296 75% 0.604 lower
4Castrop 0.408 0.332 69% 0.541 lower
5Holladay 1 0.402 0.322 70% 0.537 lower
6T2 0.415 0.335 68% 0.531 lower
7Hoffer Q 0.423 0.345 68% 0.522 lower
8Haigis 0.399 0.327 69% 0.522 lower
9SRK/T 0.427 0.347 67% 0.508 lower
10MIKOF 0.427 0.348 68% 0.507 lower
Optimization The formula constants were estimated on a sample drawn from a clinical base of 42,000 surgeries.
Validation 960 held-out eyes not used to develop the formula. All formulas were computed on the same sample, each with its own optimized constant (Hoffer–Savini 2021 protocol).
FPI A composite accuracy index for the formula. Higher values reflect better overall accuracy.
“Comparable” The difference from APEX is not statistically significant.
Status Single-center retrospective data. The full methodology and statistical analysis will be published separately.