Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 477

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Integration of Scheimpflug-Based Corneal Tomography and Biomechanical Assessments for Enhancing Ectasia Detection

Open access
Ambrósio, Renato, Lopes, Bernardo T., Faria-Correia, Fernando, Salomão, Marcella Q., Bühren, Jens, Roberts, Cynthia J., Elsheikh, Ahmed, Vinciguerra, Riccardo, Vinciguerra, Paolo·2017·Journal of Refractive Surgery

Abstract

PURPOSE: To present the Tomographic and Biomechanical Index (TBI), which combines Scheimpflugbased corneal tomography and biomechanics for enhancing ectasia detection. METHODS: Patients from different continents were retrospectively studied. The normal group included 1 eye randomly selected from 480 patients with normal corneas and the keratoconus group included 1 eye randomly selected from 204 patients with keratoconus. There were two groups: 72 ectatic eyes with no surgery from 94 patients with very asymmetric ectasia (VAE-E group) and the fellow eyes of these patients with normal topography (VAE-NT group). Pentacam HR and Corvis ST (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) parameters were analyzed and combined using different artificial intelligence methods. The accuracies for detecting ectasia of the Belin/Ambrósio Deviation (BAD-D) and Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI) were compared to the TBI, considering the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). RESULTS: The random forest method with leave-one-out cross-validation (RF/LOOCV) provided the best artificial intelligence model. The AUROC for detecting ectasia (keratoconus, VAE-E, and VAE-NT groups) of the TBI was 0.996, which was statistically higher (DeLong et al., P < .001) than the BAD-D (0.956) and CBI (0.936). The TBI cut-off value of 0.79 provided 100% sensitivity for detecting clinical ectasia (keratoconus and VAE-E groups) with 100% specificity. The AUROCs for the TBI, BAD-D, and CBI were 0.985, 0.839, and 0.822 in the VAE-NT group (DeLong et al., P < .001). An optimized TBI cut-off value of 0.29 provided 90.4% sensitivity with 96% specificity in the VAE-NT group. CONCLUSIONS: The TBI generated by the RF/LOOCV provided greater accuracy for detecting ectasia than other techniques. The TBI was sensitive for detecting subclinical (fruste) ectasia among eyes with normal topography in very asymmetric patients. The TBI may also confirm unilateral ectasia, potentially characterizing the inherent ectasia susceptibility of the cornea, which should be the subject of future studies. [ J Refract Surg. 2017;33(7):434–443.]

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 · 10.3928/1081597x-20170426-02

Cites

11 of 11 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 11 references

Metadata

Authors
Ambrósio, R., Lopes, B. T., Faria-Correia, F., Salomão, M. Q., Bühren, J., Roberts, C. J., Elsheikh, A., Vinciguerra, R., & Vinciguerra, P.
Venue
Journal of Refractive Surgery
Publisher
SLACK, Inc.
Published
2017-07
Volume
33
Issue
7
Pages
434-443
ISSN
  • 1042-962X (ISSN-L)
  • 1081-597X
OpenAlex
W2728958029
Cited by
477
References
11
FWCI
21.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Integration of Scheimpflug-Based Corneal Tomography and Biomechanical Assessments for Enhancing Ectasia Detection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3928/1081597x-20170426-02
The paper
Ambrósio, R., Lopes, B. T., Faria-Correia, F., Salomão, M. Q., Bühren, J., Roberts, C. J., Elsheikh, A., Vinciguerra, R., & Vinciguerra, P. (2017). Integration of Scheimpflug-Based Corneal Tomography and Biomechanical Assessments for Enhancing Ectasia Detection. Journal of Refractive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597x-20170426-02

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.