Ronald H Silverman1,2, Raksha Urs1, Arindam RoyChoudhury3, Timothy J Archer4, Marine Gobbe4, Dan Z Reinstein1,4,5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY - USA. 2. F.L. Lizzi Center for Biomedical Engineering, Riverside Research, New York, NY - USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY - USA. 4. London Vision Clinic, London - UK. 5. Centre Hospitalier National d'Ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts, Paris - France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Scanning Scheimpflug provides information regarding corneal thickness and 2-surface topography while arc-scanned high-frequency ultrasound allows depiction of the epithelial and stromal thickness distributions. Both techniques are useful in detection of keratoconus. Our aim was to develop and test a keratoconus classifier combining information from both methods. METHODS: We scanned 111 normal and 30 clinical keratoconus subjects with Artemis-1 and Pentacam data. After selecting one random eye per subject, we performed stepwise linear discriminant analysis on a dataset combining parameters generated by each method to obtain classification models based on each technique alone and in combination. RESULTS: Discriminant analysis resulted in a 4-variable model (R2 = 0.740) based on Artemis data alone and a 4-variable model (R2 = 0.734) using Pentacam data alone. The combined model (R2 = 0.828) consisted of 3 Artemis- and 4 Pentacam-derived variables. The combined model R value was significantly higher than either model alone (p = 0.031, one-tailed). In cross-validation, Artemis had 100% sensitivity and 99.2% specificity, Pentacam had 97.3% sensitivity and 98.0% specificity, and the combined model had 97.3% sensitivity and 100% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Pentacam, Artemis, and combined models were all effective in distinguishing normal from clinical keratoconus subjects. From the standpoint of variance explained by the model (R2 values), the combined model was most effective. Application of the model to early and subclinical keratoconus will ultimately be required to assess the effectiveness of the combined approach.
PURPOSE: Scanning Scheimpflug provides information regarding corneal thickness and 2-surface topography while arc-scanned high-frequency ultrasound allows depiction of the epithelial and stromal thickness distributions. Both techniques are useful in detection of keratoconus. Our aim was to develop and test a keratoconus classifier combining information from both methods. METHODS: We scanned 111 normal and 30 clinical keratoconus subjects with Artemis-1 and Pentacam data. After selecting one random eye per subject, we performed stepwise linear discriminant analysis on a dataset combining parameters generated by each method to obtain classification models based on each technique alone and in combination. RESULTS: Discriminant analysis resulted in a 4-variable model (R2 = 0.740) based on Artemis data alone and a 4-variable model (R2 = 0.734) using Pentacam data alone. The combined model (R2 = 0.828) consisted of 3 Artemis- and 4 Pentacam-derived variables. The combined model R value was significantly higher than either model alone (p = 0.031, one-tailed). In cross-validation, Artemis had 100% sensitivity and 99.2% specificity, Pentacam had 97.3% sensitivity and 98.0% specificity, and the combined model had 97.3% sensitivity and 100% specificity. CONCLUSIONS:Pentacam, Artemis, and combined models were all effective in distinguishing normal from clinical keratoconus subjects. From the standpoint of variance explained by the model (R2 values), the combined model was most effective. Application of the model to early and subclinical keratoconus will ultimately be required to assess the effectiveness of the combined approach.
Authors: Timothy T McMahon; Loretta Szczotka-Flynn; Joseph T Barr; Robert J Anderson; Mary E Slaughter; Jonathan H Lass; Sudha K Iyengar Journal: Cornea Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Renato Ambrósio; Leonardo P Nogueira; Diogo L Caldas; Bruno M Fontes; Allan Luz; Jorge O Cazal; Milton Ruiz Alves; Michael W Belin Journal: Int Ophthalmol Clin Date: 2011
Authors: Renato Ambrósio; Ana Laura C Caiado; Frederico P Guerra; Ricardo Louzada; Roy A Sinha; Allan Luz; William J Dupps; Michael W Belin Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Dan Z Reinstein; Marine Gobbe; Timothy J Archer; Ronald H Silverman; D Jackson Coleman Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2010-04-07 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Eric S Hwang; Claudia E Perez-Straziota; Sang Woo Kim; Marcony R Santhiago; J Bradley Randleman Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Sara Crespo Millas; José Carlos López; Elena García-Lagarto; Estibaliz Obregón; Denise Hileeto; Miguel J Maldonado; J Carlos Pastor Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Majid Moshirfar; Mahsaw N Motlagh; Michael S Murri; Hamed Momeni-Moghaddam; Yasmyne C Ronquillo; Phillip C Hoopes Journal: Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol Date: 2019
Authors: Louise Pellegrino Gomes Esporcatte; Marcella Q Salomão; Bernardo T Lopes; Paolo Vinciguerra; Riccardo Vinciguerra; Cynthia Roberts; Ahmed Elsheikh; Daniel G Dawson; Renato Ambrósio Journal: Eye Vis (Lond) Date: 2020-02-05
Authors: Jose S Velázquez-Blázquez; José M Bolarín; Francisco Cavas-Martínez; Jorge L Alió Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 3.283