April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
The Keratoconic Disease Classification Ability of Single Item and Spatial Distribution Metrics
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Pete S. Kollbaum
    Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
  • Mujtaba A. Qazi
    Pepose Vision Institute, Chesterfield, Missouri
  • Ashraf M. Mahmoud
    Ophthalmology and Biomedical Engineering,
    Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
  • Martin Rickert
    Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
  • Ryan McGiffen
    Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
  • Michael D. Twa
    College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
  • Cynthia J. Roberts
    Ophthalmology and Biomedical Eng,
    Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
  • Jay S. Pepose
    Pepose Vision Institute, Chesterfield, Missouri
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Pete S. Kollbaum, None; Mujtaba A. Qazi, None; Ashraf M. Mahmoud, None; Martin Rickert, None; Ryan McGiffen, None; Michael D. Twa, None; Cynthia J. Roberts, None; Jay S. Pepose, Abbott Medical Optics (C), Bausch and Lomb (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 5168. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Pete S. Kollbaum, Mujtaba A. Qazi, Ashraf M. Mahmoud, Martin Rickert, Ryan McGiffen, Michael D. Twa, Cynthia J. Roberts, Jay S. Pepose; The Keratoconic Disease Classification Ability of Single Item and Spatial Distribution Metrics. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):5168.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To compare single criterion corneal classification metrics with multivariate metrics and metrics of corneal spatial distribution in populations with a clinical diagnosis of normal, suspect keratoconus, and keratoconus.

Methods: : Eyes were classified as diseased if they had slit-lamp findings characteristic of keratoconus in the study eye (KCN, n=338) or fellow eye only (KCF, n=74). Keratoconus suspects (KCS, n=78) had irregular videokeratopography, but no slit-lamp findings in either eye. Normal (NRM, n=114) eyes were sampled from refractive surgery patients with no evidence of ectasia upon follow-up. 653 commonly clinically-employed aspects of slit-scanning videokeratography maps were quantified and compared using Area underneath the ROC curve (AUC) estimates. Classification items were categorized by the information they provided (e.g. anterior, posterior, pachymetry/spatial distribution, radial distance).

Results: : 77 items achieved an AUC > 0.95 in detecting KCN, 15 of which retained this ability in detecting KCF. The items that also achieved an AUC > 0.75 in detecting KCS were the anterior axial Surface Asymetry Index (SAI), anterior tangential Cone Location and Magnitude Index (CLMI) magnitude, anterior tangential Topography Irregularity (TI), anterior axial or tangential Standard Deviation of Power (SDP), and maximum posterior elevation (MPE). None of the top performing 15 items that achieved AUC’s > 0.95 in detecting KCN and KCF included information regarding pachymetry, spatial distribution, or corneal volume.

Conclusions: : Although several items detect all levels of disease with acceptable accuracy, some require complex post-acquisition calculation. Evaluating the maximum posterior elevation remains to perform quite well. In general, anterior and posterior items appear to more accurately detect disease compared to pachymetry-derived corneal volume or spatial distribution items in isolation, but improved classification may be achievable by combining items.

Keywords: keratoconus • cornea: clinical science • refractive surgery: corneal topography 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.