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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Clinical Prediction Rules: Applications and Methodological Standards
Wasson, J. H., Sox, H. C., Neff, R. K., & Goldman, L. (1985) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198509263131306 · Cited by 1,357
Cited by
Rabinowitz, Y. S. (1998) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0039-6257(97)00119-7 · Cited by 2,744
Automated Decision Tree Classification of Corneal Shape
Twa, M. D., Parthasarathy, S., Roberts, C., Mahmoud, A. M., Raasch, T. W., & Bullimore, M. A. (2005) · Optometry and Vision Science · doi:10.1097/01.opx.0000192350.01045.6f · Cited by 108
Metadata
- Authors
- Maeda, N.
- Venue
- Archives of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- 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.