The DOI matches its Crossref record.
KISA% index: a quantitative videokeratography algorithm embodying minimal topographic criteria for diagnosing keratoconus
Abstract
PURPOSE: To formulate and test an algorithm using minimal topographic criteria for accurately diagnosing clinical keratoconus. SETTING: Subspecialty cornea practice and Keratoconus Genetic Research Project. METHODS: Both eyes of 86 keratoconic patients who had never worn contact lenses and 195 normal participants were studied with the TMS-1 videokeratoscope to evaluate the KISA% index, an algorithm that topographically quantifies the phenotypic features of keratoconus. The diagnostic efficacy of the KISA% index was compared with that of the modified Rabinowitz/McDonnell (K- and I-S values) and the Maeda/Klyce (KCI% and KPI) indices. The same indices were calculated for an additional 8 eyes with keratoconus-suspect topography and 12 eyes with early keratoconus. RESULTS: The mean KISA% was significantly greater in the keratoconus group (10,382%) than in the normal control group (20.44%) with minimal overlap. At a cutoff point for KISA% of 100, 280 of 281 participants (99.6%) were correctly classified. In contrast, the correct classification rate for the other indices were KCI%, 274 of 281 (97.5%); KPI, 249 of 281 (88.6%); K, 272 of 281 (96.8%); I-S, 269 of 281 (95.7%). Six of the 8 eyes with keratoconus-suspect topography had a KISA% between 60% and 100%, and 11 of the 12 eyes with early keratoconus had a KISA% greater than 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The KISA% index set at 100 was highly sensitive and specific for diagnosing keratoconus; a range of 60% to 100% may be useful for designating suspects. This index is more useful than any of the other currently available tools for classifying patients with keratoconus for computerized segregation analysis and for distinguishing eyes with keratoconus from normal eyes in topographic screening of refractive surgical candidates.
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
Cited by
Ambrósio, R., Lopes, B. T., Faria-Correia, F., Salomão, M. Q., Bühren, J., Roberts, C. J., Elsheikh, A., Vinciguerra, R., & Vinciguerra, P. (2017) · Journal of Refractive Surgery · doi:10.3928/1081597x-20170426-02 · Cited by 477
Ambrósio, R., Alonso, R. S., Luz, A., & Coca Velarde, L. G. (2006) · Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.06.025 · Cited by 451
The Genetic and Environmental Factors for Keratoconus
Gordon-Shaag, A., Millodot, M., Shneor, E., & Liu, Y. (2015) · BioMed Research International · doi:10.1155/2015/795738 · Cited by 428
Laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and astigmatism: safety and efficacy
Sugar, A., Rapuano, C. J., Culbertson, W. W., Huang, D., Varley, G. A., Agapitos, P. J., de Luise, V. P., & Koch, D. D. (2002) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00966-6 · Cited by 408
Genetic epidemiological study of keratoconus: Evidence for major gene determination
Wang, Y., Rabinowitz, Y. S., Rotter, J. I., & Yang, H. (2000) · American Journal of Medical Genetics · doi:10.1002/1096-8628(20000828)93:5<403::aid-ajmg11>3.0.co;2-a · Cited by 278
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Rabinowitz, Y. S., & Rasheed, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
- Published
- 1999-10
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1327-1335
- ISSN
- 0146-2776 (ISSN-L)
- 0886-3350
- OpenAlex
- W2109796493
- Cited by
- 475
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.47
- 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: KISA% index: a quantitative videokeratography algorithm embodying minimal topographic criteria for diagnosing keratoconus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0886-3350(99)00195-9
- The paper
- Rabinowitz, Y. S., & Rasheed, K. (1999). KISA% index: a quantitative videokeratography algorithm embodying minimal topographic criteria for diagnosing keratoconus. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(99)00195-9
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.