Deep Learning Models Used in the Diagnostic Workup of Keratoconus: A Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prevalence of keratoconus in the general population is reported to be up to 1 of 84. Over the past 2 decades, diagnosis and management evolved rapidly, but keratoconus screening in clinical practice is still challenging and asks for improving the accuracy of keratoconus detection. Deep learning (DL) offers considerable promise for improving the accuracy and speed of medical imaging interpretation. We establish an inventory of studies conducted with DL algorithms that have attempted to diagnose keratoconus. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. We searched (Pre-)MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, arXiv document server, and Google Scholar from inception to February 18, 2022. We included studies that evaluated the performance of DL algorithms in the diagnosis of keratoconus. The main outcome was diagnostic performance measured as sensitivity and specificity, and the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Searches retrieved 4100 nonduplicate records, and we included 19 studies in the qualitative synthesis and 10 studies in the exploratory meta-analysis. The overall study quality was limited because of poor reporting of patient selection and the use of inadequate reference standards. We found a pooled sensitivity of 97.5% (95% confidence interval, 93.6%-99.0%) and a pooled specificity of 97.2% (95% confidence interval, 85.7%-99.5%) for topography images as input. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review found that the overall diagnostic performance of DL models to detect keratoconus was good, but the methodological quality of included studies was modest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".