Arvo 2010 Final

364 views
324 views

Published on

Presentation given at ARVO 2010 conference.

Published in: Health & Medicine, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
364
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • These view graphs were to presented to ARVO 2010 meeting by WVI CLA, UTSI, If you find any mistakes in the slides, please inform me. Kevin Baker, Email: dr.kevin.charles.baker@gmail.com, Phone: (office) 610-217-9141
  • We included Pentacam data of 18 KC and 22 astigmatic eyes in this study. Within the KC eyes, 8 are mild with manifest best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/25 or better. The FFKC diagnosis relied on the other eye's condition from the same subject, other KC indications, and family history. The remaining KC eyes are comprised of 5 moderate with a BCVA of 20/30-20/40, and 5 that are worse than 20/40. The 22 astigmatic eyes all had a BCVA of 20/25 or better. The posterior and anterior elevation maps are decomposed into Zernike polynomials to obtain the root mean squared error (RMSE) above the 2 nd order that represents high-order complex patterns. The difference between the 2 RMSE values is used as a third indicator. The extreme RMSE values of the astigmatic eyes are used as the screening criteria (i.e. 100% specificity).
  • We included Pentacam data of 18 KC and 22 astigmatic eyes in this study. Within the KC eyes, 8 are mild with manifest best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/25 or better. The FFKC diagnosis relied on the other eye's condition from the same subject, other KC indications, and family history. The remaining KC eyes are comprised of 5 moderate with a BCVA of 20/30-20/40, and 5 that are worse than 20/40. The 22 astigmatic eyes all had a BCVA of 20/25 or better. The posterior and anterior elevation maps are decomposed into Zernike polynomials to obtain the root mean squared error (RMSE) above the 2 nd order that represents high-order complex patterns. The difference between the 2 RMSE values is used as a third indicator. The extreme RMSE values of the astigmatic eyes are used as the screening criteria (i.e. 100% specificity).
  • AUC is equal to the probability that a classifier will rank a randomly chosen positive instance higher than a randomly chosen negative one
  • 1. The posterior cornea surface alone provides more significant indication of keratoconus than the anterior surface. 2. Analysis with a larger cornea area improves detection sensitivity. 3. Either anterior or posterior cornea irregularity is a sufficient indicator of early KC, but sometimes additional information is required to clinically diagnose FFKC.
  • Arvo 2010 Final

    1. 1. Does the Posterior Corneal Elevation Provide the First Indication of Keratoconus? K.C. Baker, Y.-L.Chen, L.Shi, J.W. L. Lewis, L.Kugler, M.Wang. Wang Vision Institute, Nashville, TN; Center for Laser Applications, University of Tennessee Space Institute, Tullahoma, TN; Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tennessee, Memphis, TN Program # 4963 Poster # D759
    2. 2. Purpose : <ul><li>The purpose of this study is to examine optical characteristics of keratoconus (KC) and forme fruste keratoconus (FFKC), and investigate whether an irregular shaped posterior cornea is a better indicator than the anterior surface that is often used in KC screening. </li></ul>Subject Makeup <ul><li>18 KC and 22 astigmatic eyes were used during this study. </li></ul><ul><li>KC eyes comprise of 8 mild ( BCVA of 20/25 or better ), 5 moderate ( BCVA between 20/30-20/40 ), and 5 advanced ( BCVA worse than 20/40 ). </li></ul><ul><li>FFKC (i.e. mild KC) diagnosis relied on the other eye's condition from the same subject, other KC indications , and family history . </li></ul><ul><li>Astigmatic eyes all had a BCVA of 20/25 or better . </li></ul>
    3. 3. Methods : <ul><li>Analyze anterior and posterior elevation using Pentacam system to evaluate their relative importance. </li></ul><ul><li>Posterior and anterior elevation maps were decomposed into Zernike polynomials using customized Matlab routines. </li></ul><ul><li>Root mean squared error (RMSE) high-order residual above the 2 nd Zernike order was calculated for the anterior, posterior , and the difference between them. </li></ul><ul><li>Extreme RMSE values of the astigmatic eyes were used as the screening criteria (i.e. 100% specificity). </li></ul><ul><li>Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the curve ( AUC ) quantitatively describes relationship between detection sensitivity and specificity at different thresholds. </li></ul>
    4. 4. Results : 5mm High-Order RMSE FFKC (mild KC) Moderate KC Advanced KC Astigmatic <ul><li>Anterior missed 8 of the 18 (56% sensitivity); 5 FFKC, 2 moderate, and 1 advanced. </li></ul><ul><li>Posterior missed 6 of 18 eyes (67% sensitivity). </li></ul><ul><li>RMSE difference missed 5 of the 18 (72% sensitivity). </li></ul>
    5. 5. Results : 5mm ROC Curves <ul><li>Nearly all moderate and advance KC tests can be correctly identified (solid lines). </li></ul><ul><li>Posterior (green lines) and difference (red lines) metrics better distinguish moderate and advanced KC subjects than anterior (blue lines). </li></ul>
    6. 6. FFKC (mild KC) Moderate KC Advanced KC Astigmatic Results : 6mm High-Order RMSE <ul><li>Anterior missed 7 of the 18 (61% sensitivity); 5 FFKC, 1 moderate, and 1 advanced. </li></ul><ul><li>Posterior and the RMSE difference missed 6 of the 18 (67% sensitivity); 5 FFKC and 1 moderate KC. </li></ul>
    7. 7. Results : 6mm ROC Curves <ul><li>All metric classifiers better distinguish moderate and advance KC subjects (solid lines) than subjects with FFKC (dotted lines). </li></ul><ul><li>Anterior, posterior, and difference metrics similarly distinguish FFKC and KC from astigmatic subjects. </li></ul>
    8. 8. FFKC (mild KC) Moderate KC Advanced KC Astigmatic Results : 7mm High-Order RMSE <ul><li>Anterior missed 7 of the 18 (61% sensitivity); 5 FFKC, 1 moderate, and 1 advanced. </li></ul><ul><li>Posterior and the RMSE difference missed 4 of the 18 (78% sensitivity); 3 FFKC and 1 moderate KC. </li></ul>
    9. 9. Results : 7mm ROC Curves <ul><li>Posterior and difference HO RMSE metrics classify 63% of FFKC subjects, while anterior only classifies 38%. </li></ul><ul><li>FFKC detection sensitivity over a larger 7mm area is improved over the smaller areas (i.e. 5mm, 6mm). </li></ul>
    10. 10. Results : FFKC and KC Classification KC sensitivity at 100% specificity KC area under ROC curve FFKC sensitivity at 100% specificity FFKC area under ROC curve Anterior 5mm 70% 0.92 38% 0.67 Posterior 5mm 90% 0.99 38% 0.66 Difference 5mm 100% 1.00 38% 0.68 Anterior 6mm 80% 0.94 38% 0.69 Posterior 6mm 90% 0.98 38% 0.68 Difference 6mm 90% 0.97 38% 0.64 Anterior 7mm 80% 0.93 38% 0.75 Posterior 7mm 80% 0.97 63% 0.84 Difference 7mm 90% 0.95 63% 0.81
    11. 11. Conclusions : <ul><li>Posterior cornea surface alone provides more of a significant indication of keratoconus than the anterior surface. </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis with a larger cornea area improves detection sensitivity . </li></ul><ul><li>Neither anterior or posterior cornea irregularity by itself is a sufficient indicator of early KC , and sometimes additional information is required to clinically diagnose FFKC. </li></ul>

    ×