Keratoconus Recognition Using A Parameter Set Determined from IOP-Matched Scenario

TL;DR

This study introduces a new three-parameter set derived from IOP-matched scenarios that improves keratoconus recognition accuracy across different intra-ocular pressure conditions, outperforming existing indexes.

Contribution

A novel compatible parameter set (CPS) was developed from IOP-matched data, demonstrating superior performance in keratoconus detection compared to existing biomechanical indexes.

Findings

CPS achieved over 95% AUC in both IOP-matched and unmatched validations.

CPS outperformed other biomechanical indexes in keratoconus recognition.

The three parameters in CPS are DRM1, AT1, and Eload.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Among the current practices for keratoconus recognition using biomechanical parameters from Corvis ST, matching intra-ocular pressure (IOP) is often required to eliminate the biasing influence; as a result, the combined biomechanical parameters determined from IOP-unmatched scenario possibly bring in confounding influence. This paper was therefore designed to introduce a novel compatible parameter set (CPS) determined from IOP-matched scenario, hopefully could show its compatibility and superiority for recognizing keratoconus in both IOP-matched and not scenarios. METHODS: A total of 335 eyes were included. Among them, 70 eyes were used to determined CPS by forward logistics regression, 62 eyes were used to validate CPS in IOP-matched scenario, and resting 203 eyes were used to validate CPS in IOP-unmatched scenario. To analyze its superiority, CPS was also compared with other two reported Biomechanical Indexes (aCBI and DCR) in both scenarios. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC), accuracy, FI, sensitivity and specificity were used to access and compare the performance of these three parameter sets in both scenarios. RESULTS: The resulting CPS was comprised of only 3 biomechanical parameters: DA Ratio Max 1mm (DRM1), the first applanation time (AT1) and an energy loading parameter (Eload). In the IOP-matched validation, the area under ROC (AUC) reached 95.73%, with an accuracy of 95.2%, sensitivity of 93.5% and specificity of 96.8% (leave one out cross-validation). All these indicators reached 96.54%, 95.1%, 95.6% and 94.6% respectively, in the IOP-unmatched validation (leave one out cross-validation). Surprisingly, CPS performed better than other two parameter sets on a whole. CONCLUSIONS: The parameter set determined from IOP-matched scenario indeed exhibit its superiority for differentiation of keratoconus and normal corneas, regardless of IOP-matched or not.