Artificial intelligence for detecting keratoconus

圆锥角膜 角膜 Scheimpflug原理 角膜地形图 激光矫视 验光服务 人工智能 光学相干层析成像 角膜疾病 眼科 角膜移植 医学 计算机科学
作者
Magali M.S. Vandevenne,Eleonora Favuzza,Mitko Veta,Ersilia Lucenteforte,Tos T. J. M. Berendschot,Rita Mencucci,Rudy M.M.A. Nuijts,Gianni Virgili,Mor M. Dickman
出处
期刊:The Cochrane library [Elsevier]
卷期号:2023 (11) 被引量:7
标识
DOI:10.1002/14651858.cd014911.pub2
摘要

Background Keratoconus remains difficult to diagnose, especially in the early stages. It is a progressive disorder of the cornea that starts at a young age. Diagnosis is based on clinical examination and corneal imaging; though in the early stages, when there are no clinical signs, diagnosis depends on the interpretation of corneal imaging (e.g. topography and tomography) by trained cornea specialists. Using artificial intelligence (AI) to analyse the corneal images and detect cases of keratoconus could help prevent visual acuity loss and even corneal transplantation. However, a missed diagnosis in people seeking refractive surgery could lead to weakening of the cornea and keratoconus‐like ectasia. There is a need for a reliable overview of the accuracy of AI for detecting keratoconus and the applicability of this automated method to the clinical setting. Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for detecting keratoconus in people presenting with refractive errors, especially those whose vision can no longer be fully corrected with glasses, those seeking corneal refractive surgery, and those suspected of having keratoconus. AI could help ophthalmologists, optometrists, and other eye care professionals to make decisions on referral to cornea specialists. Secondary objectives To assess the following potential causes of heterogeneity in diagnostic performance across studies. • Different AI algorithms (e.g. neural networks, decision trees, support vector machines)• Index test methodology (preprocessing techniques, core AI method, and postprocessing techniques)• Sources of input to train algorithms (topography and tomography images from Placido disc system, Scheimpflug system, slit‐scanning system, or optical coherence tomography (OCT); number of training and testing cases/images; label/endpoint variable used for training)• Study setting• Study design• Ethnicity, or geographic area as its proxy• Different index test positivity criteria provided by the topography or tomography device• Reference standard, topography or tomography, one or two cornea specialists• Definition of keratoconus• Mean age of participants• Recruitment of participants• Severity of keratoconus (clinically manifest or subclinical) Search methods We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 29 November 2022. Selection criteria We included cross‐sectional and diagnostic case‐control studies that investigated AI for the diagnosis of keratoconus using topography, tomography, or both. We included studies that diagnosed manifest keratoconus, subclinical keratoconus, or both. The reference standard was the interpretation of topography or tomography images by at least two cornea specialists. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted the study data and assessed the quality of studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS‐2) tool. When an article contained multiple AI algorithms, we selected the algorithm with the highest Youden's index. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results We included 63 studies, published between 1994 and 2022, that developed and investigated the accuracy of AI for the diagnosis of keratoconus. There were three different units of analysis in the studies: eyes, participants, and images. Forty‐four studies analysed 23,771 eyes, four studies analysed 3843 participants, and 15 studies analysed 38,832 images. Fifty‐four articles evaluated the detection of manifest keratoconus, defined as a cornea that showed any clinical sign of keratoconus. The accuracy of AI seems almost perfect, with a summary sensitivity of 98.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.6% to 99.1%) and a summary specificity of 98.3% (95% CI 97.4% to 98.9%). However, accuracy varied across studies and the certainty of the evidence was low. Twenty‐eight articles evaluated the detection of subclinical keratoconus, although the definition of subclinical varied. We grouped subclinical keratoconus, forme fruste, and very asymmetrical eyes together. The tests showed good accuracy, with a summary sensitivity of 90.0% (95% CI 84.5% to 93.8%) and a summary specificity of 95.5% (95% CI 91.9% to 97.5%). However, the certainty of the evidence was very low for sensitivity and low for specificity. In both groups, we graded most studies at high risk of bias, with high applicability concerns, in the domain of patient selection, since most were case‐control studies. Moreover, we graded the certainty of evidence as low to very low due to selection bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. We could not explain the heterogeneity between the studies. The sensitivity analyses based on study design, AI algorithm, imaging technique (topography versus tomography), and data source (parameters versus images) showed no differences in the results. Authors' conclusions AI appears to be a promising triage tool in ophthalmologic practice for diagnosing keratoconus. Test accuracy was very high for manifest keratoconus and slightly lower for subclinical keratoconus, indicating a higher chance of missing a diagnosis in people without clinical signs. This could lead to progression of keratoconus or an erroneous indication for refractive surgery, which would worsen the disease. We are unable to draw clear and reliable conclusions due to the high risk of bias, the unexplained heterogeneity of the results, and high applicability concerns, all of which reduced our confidence in the evidence. Greater standardization in future research would increase the quality of studies and improve comparability between studies.
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
大幅提高文件上传限制,最高150M (2024-4-1)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
NiLou完成签到,获得积分10
刚刚
NexusExplorer应助忧郁依霜采纳,获得10
刚刚
strings完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
1秒前
小林完成签到,获得积分20
2秒前
jefeer完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
NexusExplorer应助toxin采纳,获得10
3秒前
Eyrie2001发布了新的文献求助100
3秒前
3秒前
kg发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
strings发布了新的文献求助20
4秒前
rainsy发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
ShuangWeng应助tonyguo采纳,获得10
5秒前
5秒前
星辰大海应助冷酷的雁菡采纳,获得10
5秒前
yl发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
研友_Z1x9ln发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
传奇3应助jefeer采纳,获得10
7秒前
乾坤发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
TEN110684完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
8秒前
lafeierwxk完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
9秒前
yang发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
10秒前
大家好完成签到 ,获得积分10
10秒前
11秒前
11秒前
12秒前
14秒前
忐忑的蛋糕完成签到,获得积分10
14秒前
14秒前
1234发布了新的文献求助20
15秒前
zj发布了新的文献求助10
15秒前
乐乐应助rainsy采纳,获得10
15秒前
15秒前
dingxiaosong发布了新的文献求助10
16秒前
我要发文章完成签到 ,获得积分20
16秒前
elle发布了新的文献求助10
17秒前
小张完成签到 ,获得积分10
17秒前
高分求助中
Evolution 10000
Sustainability in Tides Chemistry 2800
юрские динозавры восточного забайкалья 800
English Wealden Fossils 700
An Introduction to Geographical and Urban Economics: A Spiky World Book by Charles van Marrewijk, Harry Garretsen, and Steven Brakman 600
Diagnostic immunohistochemistry : theranostic and genomic applications 6th Edition 500
Chen Hansheng: China’s Last Romantic Revolutionary 500
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 医学 生物 材料科学 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 基因 遗传学 催化作用 物理化学 免疫学 量子力学 细胞生物学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3152350
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 2803575
关于积分的说明 7854759
捐赠科研通 2461234
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1310176
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 629138
版权声明 601765