Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 234

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Methods for Detecting Keratoconus Using Videokeratography

Maeda, Naoyuki·1995·Archives of Ophthalmology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The detection of keratoconus patterns on videokeratography is important for screening candidates for refractive surgery and for studying the genetic basis of keratoconus. OBJECTIVE: We compared three quantitative approaches to identifying keratoconus from videokeratographic information to examine the limitations and capabilities of each test and to determine their suitability for use in the clinical setting. METHODS: Videokeratographs typical of clinically diagnosed keratoconus (n = 44) and of various non-keratoconus conditions (n = 132, including normal, with-the-rule astigmatism, contact lens-induced corneal warpage, photorefractive keratectomy, keratoplasty, and pellucid marginal degeneration) were selected. Three methods for detecting keratoconus were used: keratometry (average Simulated Keratometry [SimK] readings > 45.7 diopters [D]); the modified Rabinowitz-McDonnell test (central corneal power > 47.2 D and/or Inferosuperior Asymmetry [I-S] value > 1.4 D); and an expert system classifier (classification based on discriminant analysis and classification tree with eight topographic indexes). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each test. RESULTS: Sensitivities were 84% for keratometry, 96% for the modified Rabinowitz-McDonnell test, and 98% for the expert system classifier. Specificities for the three methods were 86%, 85%, and 99%, respectively. In terms of sensitivity, the expert system classifier was significantly better than keratometry (P = .04). In terms of specificity, the expert system classifier was significantly better than either of the other methods (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: For screening candidates for refractive surgery, where high sensitivity is needed, either the modified Rabinowitz-McDonnell test or the expert system classifier is suitable. For diagnosing keratoconus, where high specificity is more useful, the expert system classifier is more appropriate than the other two methods.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archopht.1995.01100070044023

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 234

Metadata

Authors
Maeda, N.
Venue
Archives of Ophthalmology
Published
1995-07-01
Volume
113
Issue
7
Pages
870
ISSN
0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2021032794
Cited by
234
References
1
FWCI
2.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Methods for Detecting Keratoconus Using Videokeratography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archopht.1995.01100070044023
The paper
Maeda, N. (1995). Comparison of Methods for Detecting Keratoconus Using Videokeratography. Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1995.01100070044023

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.