**Purpose**:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prediction accuracy of effective lens position (ELP) after cataract surgery using a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA).

**Methods**:
Ninety-six eyes of 96 consecutive patients (aged 73.9 ± 8.6 years) who underwent cataract surgery were retrospectively studied; the eyes were randomly distributed to a prediction group (55 eyes) and a verification group (41 eyes). The procedure was repeated randomly 30 times to create 30 data sets for both groups. In the prediction group, based on the parameters of preoperative optical coherence tomography (OCT), biometry, and anterior segment (AS)-OCT, the prediction equation of ELP was created using MOEA and stepwise multiple regression analysis (SMR). Subsequently, the prediction accuracy of ELPs was evaluated and compared with conventional formulas, including SRK/T and the Haigis formula.

**Results**:
The rate of mean absolute prediction error of 0.3 mm or higher was significantly lower in MOEA (mean 4.9% ± 3.2%, maximum 9.8%) than SMR (mean 7.3% ± 4.8%, maximum 24.4%) (*P* = 0.0323). The median of the correlation coefficient (*R*^{2} = 0.771) between the MOEA predicted and measured ELP was higher than the SRK/T (*R*^{2} = 0.412) and Haigis (*R*^{2} = 0.438) formulas.

**Conclusions**:
The study demonstrated that ELP prediction by MOEA was more accurate and was a method of less fluctuation than that of SMR and conventional formulas.

**Translational Relevance**:
MOEA is a promising method for solving clinical problems such as prediction of ocular biometry values by simultaneously optimizing several conditions for subjects affected by various complex factors.

^{1–12}Factors that cause postoperative refractive errors in cataract surgery include the lack of measurement accuracy of the ocular biometry and prediction errors in the fixed position of the IOL, that is, effective lens position (ELP). The recent development of optical biometric devices has improved the accuracy of biometric measurements. However, because ELP is affected by many parameters, including the preoperative capsule size, severity of the cataract, and postsurgical capsule contraction, accurate prediction is a challenging issue.

^{12–16}

^{16,17}In this study, in order to reduce the postoperative refractive error, we introduced a novel approach of an evolutionary algorithm (EA) to minimize the prediction error of ELP.

^{18}Recently, it has been widely applied to processes such as optimization, learning, and adaptation as an important computational methodology that is closely related to artificial intelligence.

^{19}The use of EA in optimization involves the representation of a solution (individual) as a sequence of parameters (variables) to be optimized; in addition, for a given problem, the objective function to be minimized (or maximized) can be included. Many individuals are randomly generated in a population and are subsequently evaluated for the purpose of ranking them from top to bottom. Next, two individuals with higher rank are selected as parents, and new offspring are created by recombining the genetic information of the parents. This operation is repeated many times until a satisfactory solution of the objective function is obtained with a high value. In most real-world problems, multiple objective functions are included. In such cases, multiobjective EA (MOEA) can be utilized to simultaneously optimize more than two objective functions.

^{20}However, to the best of our knowledge, research to minimize the prediction error of ELP has not been reported. Reports have indicated that EA is useful in solving optimization problems, including noise.

^{21–24}In our study, which includes the measurement data of noise generated from the patient, examiner, measuring instruments, and condition, EA was considered to be a useful approach. Currently, there is no accurate and standard calculation formula to predict the ELP. Therefore, in our study, conventional multiple regression analysis was performed, and the prediction accuracy was compared with that using EA.

^{25}which is well-known as an MOEA that shows stable performance in various applications.

^{22–24}A detailed algorithm of NSGA-II has been reported.

^{25}Briefly, the feature of this algorithm involves choosing an individual (solution), as shown in Figure 2.

*x*

_{1}…

*x*

_{10}are the bioinstrumentation parameters;

*a*

_{1}…

*a*

_{10}are the coefficients for each bioinstrumentation parameter (to be optimized), and

*C*is the constant (to be optimized).

*i*is the number of data;

*n*is the total number of data; and

*E*.

^{25}A flowchart of this procedure is shown in Figure 2. First, 3000 individuals (solutions) were randomly generated, and a parent population

^{25}Subsequently, only the upper-half individuals with higher fitness survived as the parent population

*R*

^{2}) between the predicted and measured ELPs by MOEA was compared with that of the SRK/T and Haigis equations. The IOL constant in the SRK/T and Haigis formulas was optimized using the IOLMaster 500. The optimized A-constant of the SRK/T formula was 119.1, and the a0, a1, and a2 constants of the Haigis formula were −0.275, 0.243, and 0.2, respectively.

*t*test was used to compare the standard deviations of both groups. All statistical analyses were performed using software (SPSS, version 21.0; IBM, Inc. Armonk, NY). A

*P*value of less than 5% was considered statistically significant.

*P*< 0.0001,

*P*= 0.0186,

*P*= 0.0005,

*P*= 0.0161, and

*P*= 0.0111). Two (6.7%) showed significantly lower values in the SMR than in the MOEA group (

*P*= 0.0161 and

*P*= 0.0241).

*P*= 0.3951). The standard deviation of MAPE in the MOEA group (0.014 mm) was significantly lower than that in the SMR group (0.021 mm) (

*P*= 0.0380) (Fig. 3B). The rate at which MAPE was 0.3 mm or higher was significantly greater in the SMR group (mean 7.31% ± 4.80%) than the MOEA group (mean 4.87% ± 3.15%) (Fig. 3C,

*P*= 0.0323). Moreover, the maximum proportion of patients with a MAPE of 0.3 mm or higher in the MOEA and SMR groups was 9.8% and 24.4%, respectively.

*β*of the SMR group was 0.815 ± 0.181 for AQD, 0.498 ± 0.113 for LT, 0.301 ± 0.082 for AL, 0.246 ± 0.076 for ATA-D, −0.181 ± 0.063 for ACC, and 0.150 ± 0.003 for CCT (Fig. 4A).

*β*of the MOEA group was 0.727 ± 0.118 for AQD, 0.4453 ± 0.077 for LT, 0.370 ± 0.125 for AL, 0.213 ± 0.085 for ATA-D, 0.118 ± 0.057 for CCT, 0.086 ± 0.093 for age, −0.077 ± 0.200 for ACC, 0.011 ± 0.044 for gender, −0.010 ± 0.080 for ATA-W, and −0.005 ± 0.085 for PCC (Fig. 4B). The minimum and maximum coefficients of determination (

*R*

^{2}) of the predicted ELP by MOEA and the measured ELP in the validation group were 0.632 and 0.873, respectively.

*R*

^{2}between the predicted and measured ELPs was 0.771 for MOEA, 0.412 for the SRK/T formula, and 0.438 for the Haigis formula (Fig. 6).

^{17}thus enabling accurate measurement through ocular biometry before cataract surgery and use in IOL calculations.

^{17}conducted research that created a prediction group and a verification group in the same way as for the current research. In their report, they did not create the prediction and verification groups 30 times, as we did, but rather only once. They reported that the MAPE was 0.11 ± 0.08 D, which was equivalent to the average value of our outcomes by MOEA. As for comparisons with other reports, a direct comparison cannot be made because the methodology of study is different.

**A. Tamaoki**, None;

**T. Kojima**, None;

**Y. Tanaka**, None;

**A. Hasegawa**, None;

**T. Kaga**, None;

**K. Ichikawa**, None;

**K. Tanaka**, None

*. 1975; 14: 625–628.*

*Invest Ophthalmol**. 1990; 16: 333–340.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 1988; 14: 17–24.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 1990; 16: 587–590.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 1993; 19: 713–720.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 1993; 19: 700–712.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 1995; 21: 313–319.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 2002; 28: 1412–1419.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 2008; 34: 802–808.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 2009; 35: 906–911.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 2011; 37: 2018–2027.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 2015; 41: 2379–2386.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 1993; 19: 442–443.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 1992; 18: 125–129.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 2008; 34: 368–376.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 1990; 16: 587–590.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 2016; 123: 2474–2480.*

*Ophthalmology**. Boca Raton, FL: ACM Digital Library; 1997.*

*Handbook of Evolutionary Computation**Proceedings of 1997 the International Conference on Neural Information Processing and Intelligent Information Systems*.

*New York: ACM;*1997: 436–439.

*. 2015; 30: 406–416.*

*Oman Med J**. 2000; 8: 173–195.*

*Evol Comput**. 2014; 286575.*

*Scientific World Journal**. 2015; 3: 5.*

*Health Inf Sci Syst**Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press;*2002: 360–365.

*. 2002; 6: 182–197.*

*IEEE Trans Evol Comput**. 2014; 40: 764–773.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg**. 2004; 30: 863–866.*

*J Cataract Refract Surg*