PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine classification criteria for multiple evanescent white dot syndrome (MEWDS). DESIGN: Machine learning of cases with MEWDS and 8 other posterior uveitides. METHODS: Cases of posterior uveitides were collected in an informatics-designed preliminary database, and a final database was constructed of cases achieving supermajority agreement on diagnosis using formal consensus techniques. Cases were split into a training set and a validation set. Machine learning using multinomial logistic regression was used in the training set to determine a parsimonious set of criteria that minimized the misclassification rate among the infectious posterior, or panuveitides. The resulting criteria were evaluated in the validation set. RESULTS: A total of 1,068 cases of posterior uveitides, including 51 cases of MEWDS, were evaluated by machine learning. Key criteria for MEWDS included: 1) multifocal gray-white chorioretinal spots with foveal granularity; 2) characteristic imaging on fluorescein angiography ("wreath-like" hyperfluorescent lesions) and/or optical coherence tomography (hyper-reflective lesions extending from retinal pigment epithelium through ellipsoid zone into the retinal outer nuclear layer); and 3) absent to mild anterior chamber and vitreous inflammation. Overall accuracy for posterior uveitides was 93.9% in the training set and 98.0% (95% confidence interval: 94.3-99.3) in the validation set. Misclassification rates for MEWDS were 7% in the training set and 0% in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: The criteria for MEWDS had a low misclassification rate and appeared to perform sufficiently well for use in clinical and translational research.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine classification criteria for multiple evanescent white dot syndrome (MEWDS). DESIGN: Machine learning of cases with MEWDS and 8 other posterior uveitides. METHODS: Cases of posterior uveitides were collected in an informatics-designed preliminary database, and a final database was constructed of cases achieving supermajority agreement on diagnosis using formal consensus techniques. Cases were split into a training set and a validation set. Machine learning using multinomial logistic regression was used in the training set to determine a parsimonious set of criteria that minimized the misclassification rate among the infectious posterior, or panuveitides. The resulting criteria were evaluated in the validation set. RESULTS: A total of 1,068 cases of posterior uveitides, including 51 cases of MEWDS, were evaluated by machine learning. Key criteria for MEWDS included: 1) multifocal gray-white chorioretinal spots with foveal granularity; 2) characteristic imaging on fluorescein angiography ("wreath-like" hyperfluorescent lesions) and/or optical coherence tomography (hyper-reflective lesions extending from retinal pigment epithelium through ellipsoid zone into the retinal outer nuclear layer); and 3) absent to mild anterior chamber and vitreous inflammation. Overall accuracy for posterior uveitides was 93.9% in the training set and 98.0% (95% confidence interval: 94.3-99.3) in the validation set. Misclassification rates for MEWDS were 7% in the training set and 0% in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: The criteria for MEWDS had a low misclassification rate and appeared to perform sufficiently well for use in clinical and translational research.
Authors: Anthony Joseph; Ehsan Rahimy; K Bailey Freund; John A Sorenson; David Sarraf Journal: Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 1.300
Authors: Douglas A Jabs; Andrew Dick; John T Doucette; Amod Gupta; Susan Lightman; Peter McCluskey; Annabelle A Okada; Alan G Palestine; James T Rosenbaum; Sophia M Saleem; Jennifer Thorne; Brett Trusko Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Nakhleh E Abu-Yaghi; Stella P Hartono; David O Hodge; Jose S Pulido; Sophie J Bakri Journal: Ocul Immunol Inflamm Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.070
Authors: Marcela Marsiglia; Roberto Gallego-Pinazo; Eduardo Cunha de Souza; Marion R Munk; Suquin Yu; Sarah Mrejen; Emmett T Cunningham; Brandon J Lujan; Naomi R Goldberg; Thomas A Albini; Alain Gaudric; Catherine Francais; Richard B Rosen; K Bailey Freund; Lee M Jampol; Lawrence A Yannuzzi Journal: Retina Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Rohit Aggarwal; Sarah Ringold; Dinesh Khanna; Tuhina Neogi; Sindhu R Johnson; Amy Miller; Hermine I Brunner; Rikke Ogawa; David Felson; Alexis Ogdie; Daniel Aletaha; Brian M Feldman Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.794