Ruiz Hidalgo Irene, Rozema Jos J, Saad Alain, Gatinel Damien, Rodriguez Pablo, Zakaria Nadia, Koppen Carina
*Department of Ophthalmology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium; †Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Antwerp University, Wilrijk, Belgium; ‡Department of Anterior Segment and Refractive Surgery, Fondation Rothschild, Paris, France; and §ICMA, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Cornea. 2017 Jun;36(6):689-695. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001194.
To validate a recently developed program for automatic and objective keratoconus detection (Keratoconus Assistant [KA]) by applying it to a new population and comparing it with other methods described in the literature.
KA uses machine learning and 25 Pentacam-derived parameters to classify eyes into subgroups, such as keratoconus, keratoconus suspect, postrefractive surgery, and normal eyes. To validate this program, it was applied to 131 eyes diagnosed separately by experienced corneal specialists from 2 different centers (Fondation Rothschild, Paris, and Antwerp University Hospital [UZA]). The agreement of the KA classification with 7 other indices from the literature was assessed using interrater reliability and confusion matrices. The agreement of the 2 clinical classifications was also assessed.
For keratoconus, KA agreed in 92.6% of cases with the clinical diagnosis by UZA and in 98.0% of cases with the diagnosis by Rothschild. In keratoconus suspect and forme fruste detection, KA agreed in 65.2% (UZA) and 100% (Rothschild) of cases with the clinical assessments. This corresponds with a moderate agreement with a clinical assessment (κ = 0.594 and κ = 0.563 for Rothschild and UZA, respectively). The agreement with the other classification methods ranged from moderate (κ = 0.432; Score) to low (κ = 0.158; KISA%). Both clinical assessments agreed substantially (κ = 0.759) with each other.
KA is effective at detecting early keratoconus and agrees with trained clinical judgment. As keratoconus detection depends on the method used, we recommend using multiple methods side by side.
通过将最近开发的用于自动、客观检测圆锥角膜的程序(圆锥角膜辅助程序[KA])应用于新的人群,并与文献中描述的其他方法进行比较,以验证该程序。
KA使用机器学习和25个来自Pentacam的参数将眼睛分为不同亚组,如圆锥角膜、疑似圆锥角膜、屈光手术后眼睛和正常眼睛。为了验证该程序,将其应用于由来自2个不同中心(巴黎罗斯柴尔德基金会和安特卫普大学医院[UZA])的经验丰富的角膜专家分别诊断的131只眼睛。使用评分者间信度和混淆矩阵评估KA分类与文献中其他7个指标的一致性。还评估了两种临床分类的一致性。
对于圆锥角膜,KA在92.6%的病例中与UZA的临床诊断一致,在98.0%的病例中与罗斯柴尔德的诊断一致。在疑似圆锥角膜和顿挫型圆锥角膜检测中,KA在65.2%(UZA)和100%(罗斯柴尔德)的病例中与临床评估一致。这与临床评估的一致性为中等(罗斯柴尔德和UZA的κ分别为0.594和0.563)。与其他分类方法的一致性从中等(κ = 0.432;评分)到低(κ = 0.158;KISA%)不等。两种临床评估之间的一致性很高(κ = 0.759)。
KA在检测早期圆锥角膜方面有效,并且与训练有素的临床判断一致。由于圆锥角膜的检测取决于所使用的方法,我们建议同时使用多种方法。