Top

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Published in:

09-11-2023 | Artificial Intelligence | Mini Review

Corneal biomechanics in early diagnosis of keratoconus using artificial intelligence

Authors: Yan Huo, Xuan Chen, Gauhar Ali Khan, Yan Wang

Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 4/2024

Abstract

Keratoconus is a blinding eye disease that affects activities of daily living; therefore, early diagnosis is crucial. Great efforts have been made toward an early diagnosis of keratoconus. Recent studies have shown that corneal biomechanics is associated with the occurrence and progression of keratoconus. Hence, detecting changes in corneal biomechanics may provide a novel strategy for early diagnosis. However, an early keratoconus diagnosis remains challenging due to the subtle and localized nature of its lesions. Artificial intelligence has been used to help address this problem. Herein, we reviewed the literature regarding three aspects of keratoconus (keratoconus, early keratoconus, and keratoconus grading) based on corneal biomechanical properties using artificial intelligence. Furthermore, we summarized the current research progress, limitations, and possible prospects.

Salomão MQ, Hofling-Lima AL, Gomes Esporcatte LP, Lopes B, Vinciguerra R, Vinciguerra P, Bühren J, Sena N, Luz Hilgert GS, Ambrósio R (2020) The role of corneal biomechanics for the evaluation of ectasia patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:2113. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17062113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ma J, Wang Y, Wei P, Jhanji V (2018) Biomechanics and structure of the cornea: implications and association with corneal disorders. Surv Ophthalmol 63:851–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2018.05.004CrossRefPubMed

Chong J, Dupps WJ Jr (2021) Corneal biomechanics: measurement and structural correlations. Exp Eye Res 205:108508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2021.108508CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Keratoconus RYS (1998) Surv Ophthalmol 42:297–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0039-6257(97)00119-7CrossRef

Johnson RD, Nguyen MT, Lee N, Hamilton DR (2011) Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, forme fruste keratoconus, and manifest keratoconus after statistical correction for potentially confounding factors. Cornea 30:516–523. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181f0579eCrossRefPubMed

Viswanathan D, Kumar NL, Males JJ, Graham SL (2015) Relationship of structural characteristics to biomechanical profile in normal, keratoconic, and crosslinked eyes. Cornea 34:791–796. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000000434CrossRefPubMed

Kenney MC, Chwa M, Atilano SR, Tran A, Carballo M, Saghizadeh M, Vasiliou V, Adach W, Brown DJ (2005) Increased levels of catalase and cathepsin V/L2 but decreased TIMP-1 in keratoconus corneas: evidence that oxidative stress plays a role in this disorder. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:823–832. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.04-0549CrossRefPubMed

Zhou L, Sawaguchi S, Twining SS, Sugar J, Feder RS, Yue BY (1998) Expression of degradative enzymes and protease inhibitors in corneas with keratoconus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:1117–1124PubMed

Daxer A, Fratzl P (1997) Collagen fibril orientation in the human corneal stroma and its implication in keratoconus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 38:121–129PubMed

10.

Santodomingo-Rubido J, Carracedo G, Suzaki A, Villa-Collar C, Vincent SJ, Wolffsohn JS (2022) Keratoconus: an updated review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 45:101559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2021.101559CrossRefPubMed

11.

Steinberg J, Aubke-Schultz S, Frings A, Hülle J, Druchkiv V, Richard G, Katz T, Linke SJ (2015) Correlation of the KISA% index and Scheimpflug tomography in ‘normal’, ‘subclinical’, ‘keratoconus-suspect’ and ‘clinically manifest’ keratoconus eyes. Acta Ophthalmol 93:e199–e207. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12590CrossRefPubMed

12.

Shetty R, Rao H, Khamar P, Sainani K, Vunnava K, Jayade C, Kaweri L (2017) Keratoconus screening indices and their diagnostic ability to distinguish normal from ectatic corneas. Am J Ophthalmol 181:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.06.031CrossRefPubMed

13.

Zhang X, Munir SZ, Sami Karim SA, Munir WM (2021) A review of imaging modalities for detecting early keratoconus. Eye 35:173–187. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-1039-1CrossRefPubMed

14.

Tummanapalli SS, Potluri H, Vaddavalli PK, Sangwan VS (2015) Efficacy of axial and tangential corneal topography maps in detecting subclinical keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:2205–2214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.10.041CrossRefPubMed

15.

Alkanaan A, Barsotti R, Kirat O, Khan A, Almubrad T, Akhtar S (2019) Collagen fibrils and proteoglycans of peripheral and central stroma of the keratoconus cornea - ultrastructure and 3D transmission electron tomography. Sci Rep 9:19963. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56529-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Götzinger E, Pircher M, Dejaco-Ruhswurm I, Kaminski S, Skorpik C, Hitzenberger CK (2007) Imaging of birefringent properties of keratoconus corneas by polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:3551–3558. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.06-0727CrossRefPubMed

17.

Padmanabhan P, Elsheikh A (2022) Keratoconus: a biomechanical perspective. Curr Eye Res 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2022.2088798

18.

Kling S, Hafezi F (2017) Corneal biomechanics - a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 37:240–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12345CrossRefPubMed

19.

Roberts CJ, Dupps WJ Jr (2014) Biomechanics of corneal ectasia and biomechanical treatments. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:991–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.04.013CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Esporcatte LPG, Salomão MQ, Lopes BT, Sena N, Ferreira É, Filho JBRF, Machado AP, Ambrósio R (2022) Biomechanics in keratoconus diagnosis. Curr Eye Res 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2022.2041042

21.

Vinciguerra R, Ambrósio R Jr, Elsheikh A, Roberts CJ, Lopes B, Morenghi E, Azzolini C, Vinciguerra P (2016) Detection of keratoconus with a new biomechanical index. J Refract Surg 32:803–810. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20160629-01CrossRefPubMed

22.

Tian L, Ko MW, Wang LK, Zhang JY, Li TJ, Huang YF, Zheng YP (2014) Assessment of ocular biomechanics using dynamic ultra high-speed Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconic and normal eyes. J Refract Surg 30:785–791. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20140930-01CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hogarty DT, Mackey DA, Hewitt AW (2019) Current state and future prospects of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 47:128–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13381CrossRefPubMed

24.

Cheung CY, Tang F, Ting DSW, Tan GSW, Wong TY (2019) Artificial intelligence in diabetic eye disease screening. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol. 8(2):158–164. https://doi.org/10.22608/APO.201976CrossRef

25.

Cao K, Verspoor K, Sahebjada S, Baird PN (2022) Accuracy of machine learning assisted detection of keratoconus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med 11:478. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030478CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Ting DSW, Peng L, Varadarajan AV, Keane PA, Burlina PM, Chiang MF, Schmetterer L, Pasquale LR, Bressler NM, Webster DR, Abramoff M, Wong TY (2019) Deep learning in ophthalmology: the technical and clinical considerations. Prog Retin Eye Res 72:100759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.04.003CrossRefPubMed

27.

Luce DA (2005) Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:156–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.10.044CrossRefPubMed

28.

Roberts CJ (2014) Concepts and misconceptions in corneal biomechanics. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:862–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.04.019CrossRefPubMed

29.

Piñero DP, Alcón N (2014) In vivo characterization of corneal biomechanics. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:870–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.03.021CrossRefPubMed

30.

Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Bhojwani R, Mantry S, Cunliffe I (2007) Assessment of the biomechanical properties of the cornea with the ocular response analyzer in normal and keratoconic eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:3026–3031. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.04-0694CrossRefPubMed

31.

Fontes BM, Ambrósio R Jr, Jardim D, Velarde GC, Nosé W (2010) Corneal biomechanical metrics and anterior segment parameters in mild keratoconus. Ophthalmology 117:673–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.09.023CrossRefPubMed

32.

Fontes BM, Ambrósio R Jr, Jardim D, Velarde GC, Nosé W (2010) Ability of corneal biomechanical metrics and anterior segment data in the differentiation of keratoconus and healthy corneas. Arq Bras Oftalmol 73:333–337. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0004-27492010000400006CrossRefPubMed

33.

Labiris G, Gatzioufas Z, Sideroudi H, Giarmoukakis A, Kozobolis V Seitz, B (2013) Biomechanical diagnosis of keratoconus: evaluation of the keratoconus match index and the keratoconus match probability. Acta Ophthalmol 91:e258-e262. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12056

34.

Lopes BT, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A, Vinciguerra R, Vinciguerra P, Reisdorf S, Berger S, Koprowski R, Ambrósio R (2017) Repeatability and reproducibility of intraocular pressure and dynamic corneal response parameters assessed by the Corvis ST. J Ophthalmol. 2017:8515742. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8515742CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Salouti R, Alishiri AA, Gharebaghi R, Naderi M, Jadidi K, Shojaei-Baghini A, Talebnejad M, Nasiri Z, Hosseini S, Heidary F (2018) Comparison among Ocular Response Analyzer, Corvis ST and Goldmann applanation tonometry in healthy children. Int J Ophthalmol 11:1330–1336. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2018.08.13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Ambrósio R, Lopes BT, Faria-Correia F, Salomão MQ, Bühren J, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A, Vinciguerra R, Vinciguerra P (2017) Integration of scheimpflug-based corneal tomography and biomechanical assessments for enhancing ectasia detection. J Refract Surg 33:434–443. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20170426-02CrossRefPubMed

37.

Tan Z, Chen X, Li K, Liu Y, Cao H, Li J, Jhanji V, Zou H, Liu F, Wang R, Wang Y (2022) Artificial intelligence-based diagnostic model for detecting keratoconus using videos of corneal force deformation. Transl Vis Sci Technol 11:32. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.11.9.32CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Arnalich-Montiel F, Alió Del Barrio JL, Alió JL (2016) Corneal surgery in keratoconus: which type, which technique, which outcomes? Eye Vis 3:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-016-0033-yCrossRef

39.

Klyce SD (2009) Chasing the suspect: keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol 93:845–847. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2008.147371CrossRefPubMed

40.

Gomes JA, Tan D, Rapuano CJ, Belin MW, Ambrósio R Jr, Guell JL, Malecaze F, Nishida K, Sangwan VS, Group of Panelists for the Global Delphi Panel of Keratoconus, Ectatic Diseases (2015) Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea 34:359–369. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000000408CrossRefPubMed

41.

Bao F, Geraghty B, Wang Q, Elsheikh A (2016) Consideration of corneal biomechanics in the diagnosis and management of keratoconus: is it important? Eye Vis 3:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-016-0048-4CrossRef

42.

Ventura BV, Machado AP, Ambrósio R Jr, Ribeiro G, Araújo LN, Luz A, Lyra JM (2013) Analysis of waveform-derived ORA parameters in early forms of keratoconus and normal corneas. J Refract Surg 29:637–643. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20130819-05CrossRefPubMed

43.

Krumeich JH, Daniel J, Knülle A (1998) Live-epikeratophakia for keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:456–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(98)80284-8CrossRefPubMed

44.

Luz A, Lopes B, Hallahan KM, Valbon B, Ramos I, Faria-Correia F, Schor P, Dupps WJ, Ambrósio R (2016) Enhanced combined tomography and biomechanics data for distinguishing forme fruste keratoconus. J Refract Surg 32:479–494. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20160502-02CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Zhang H, Tian L, Guo L, Qin X, Zhang D, Li L, Jie Y, Zhang H (2021) Comprehensive evaluation of corneas from normal, forme fruste keratoconus and clinical keratoconus patients using morphological and biomechanical properties. Int Ophthalmol 41:1247–1259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01679-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Atalay E, Özalp O, Erol MA, Bilgin M, Yıldırım N (2020) A combined biomechanical and tomographic model for identifying cases of subclinical keratoconus. Cornea 39:461–467. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000002205CrossRefPubMed

47.

Peña-García P, Peris-Martínez C, Abbouda A, Ruiz-Moreno JM (2016) Detection of subclinical keratoconus through non-contact tonometry and the use of discriminant biomechanical functions. J Biomech 49:353–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.12.031CrossRefPubMed

48.

Francis M, Pahuja N, Shroff R, Gowda R, Matalia H, Shetty R, Remington Nelson EJ, Sinha Roy A (2017) Waveform analysis of deformation amplitude and deflection amplitude in normal, suspect, and keratoconic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 43:1271–1280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.10.012CrossRefPubMed

49.

Matalia J, Francis M, Tejwani S, Dudeja G, Rajappa N, Sinha Roy AS (2016) Role of age and myopia in simultaneous assessment of corneal and extraocular tissue stiffness by air-puff applanation. J Refract Surg 32:486–493. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20160512-02CrossRefPubMed

50.

Tian L, Zhang D, Guo L, Qin X, Zhang H, Zhang H, Jie Y, Li L (2021) Comparisons of corneal biomechanical and tomographic parameters among thin normal cornea, forme fruste keratoconus, and mild keratoconus. Eye Vis 8:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-021-00266-yCrossRef

51.

Huseynli S, Salgado-Borges J, Alio JL (2018) Comparative evaluation of Scheimpflug tomography parameters between thin non-keratoconic, subclinical keratoconic, and mild keratoconic corneas. Eur J Ophthalmol 28:521–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672118760146CrossRefPubMed

52.

Song P, Ren S, Liu Y, Li P, Zeng Q (2022) Detection of subclinical keratoconus using a novel combined tomographic and biomechanical model based on an automated decision tree. Sci Rep 12:5316. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09160-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Pérez-Rueda A, Jiménez-Rodríguez D, Castro-Luna G (2021) Diagnosis of subclinical keratoconus with a combined model of biomechanical and topographic parameters. J Clin Med 10:2746. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132746CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Shiga S, Kojima T, Nishida T, Nakamura T, Ichikawa K (2021) Evaluation of CorvisST biomechanical parameters and anterior segment optical coherence tomography for diagnosing forme fruste keratoconus. Acta Ophthalmol 99:644–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14700CrossRefPubMed

55.

Lu NJ, Elsheikh A, Rozema JJ, Hafezi N, Aslanides IM, Hillen M, Eckert D, Funck C, Koppen C, Cui LL, Hafezi F (2022) Combining spectral-domain OCT and air-puff tonometry analysis to diagnose keratoconus. J Refract Surg 38:374–380. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20220414-02CrossRefPubMed

56.

Karimi A, Meimani N, Razaghi R, Rahmati SM, Jadidi K, Rostami M (2018) Biomechanics of the healthy and keratoconic corneas: a combination of the clinical data, finite element analysis, and artificial neural network. Curr Pharm Des 24:4474–4483. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612825666181224123939CrossRefPubMed

57.

Alió Del Barrio JL, Arnalich-Montiel F, De Miguel MP, El Zarif ME, Alió JL (2021) Corneal stroma regeneration: preclinical studies. Exp Eye Res 202:108314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2020.108314CrossRefPubMed

58.

Herber R, Pillunat LE, Raiskup F (2021) Development of a classification system based on corneal biomechanical properties using artificial intelligence predicting keratoconus severity. Eye Vis 8:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-021-00244-4CrossRef

59.

Langenbucher A, Häfner L, Eppig T, Seitz B, Szentmáry N, Flockerzi E (2021) Keratoconus detection and classification from parameters of the Corvis®ST: a study based on algorithms of machine learning. Ophthalmologe 118:697–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-020-01231-1CrossRefPubMed

60.

Flockerzi E, Vinciguerra R, Belin MW, Vinciguerra P, Ambrósio R Jr, Seitz B (2022) Correlation of the Corvis Biomechanical Factor with tomographic parameters in keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 48:215–221. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000740CrossRefPubMed

61.

Flockerzi E, Vinciguerra R, Belin MW, Vinciguerra P, Ambrósio R Jr, Seitz B (2022) Combined biomechanical and tomographic keratoconus staging: adding a biomechanical parameter to the ABCD keratoconus staging system. Acta Ophthalmol 100:e1135–e1142. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.15044CrossRefPubMed

62.

Belin MW, Duncan JK (2016) Keratoconus: the ABCD grading system. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 233:701–707. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-100626CrossRefPubMed

63.

Ruberti JW, Sinha Roy A, Roberts CJ (2011) Corneal biomechanics and biomaterials. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 13:269–295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-070909-105243CrossRefPubMed

64.

Patel S, Mclaren J, Hodge D, Bourne W (2001) Normal human keratocyte density and corneal thickness measurement by using confocal microscopy in vivo. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:333–339PubMed

65.

Dupps WJ Jr (2007) Hysteresis: new mechanospeak for the ophthalmologist. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:1499–1501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.07.008CrossRefPubMed

66.

Glass DH, Roberts CJ, Litsky AS, Weber PA (2008) A viscoelastic biomechanical model of the cornea describing the effect of viscosity and elasticity on hysteresis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:3919–3926. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.07-1321CrossRefPubMed

67.

Viidik A (1973) Functional properties of collagenous tissues. Int Rev Connect Tissue Res 6:127–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-363706-2.50010-6CrossRefPubMed

68.

Vinciguerra R, Ambrósio R Jr, Roberts CJ, Azzolini C, Vinciguerra P (2017) Biomechanical characterization of subclinical keratoconus without topographic or tomographic abnormalities. J Refract Surg 33:399–407. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20170213-01CrossRefPubMed

69.

Ali NQ, Patel DV, Mcghee CN (2014) Biomechanical responses of healthy and keratoconic corneas measured using a noncontact scheimpflug-based tonometer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55:3651–3659. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13-13715CrossRefPubMed

70.

Romero-Jiménez M, Santodomingo-Rubido J, González-Méijome JM (2013) The thinnest, steepest, and maximum elevation corneal locations in noncontact and contact lens wearers in keratoconus. Cornea 32:332–337. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e318259c98aCrossRefPubMed

71.

Liu Q, Gu Q, Wu Z (2017) Feature selection method based on support vector machine and shape analysis for high-throughput medical data. Comput Biol Med 91:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.10.008CrossRefPubMed

72.

Steinberg J, Siebert M, Katz T, Frings A, Mehlan J, Druchkiv V, Bühren J, Linke SJ (2018) Tomographic and biomechanical scheimpflug imaging for keratoconus characterization: a validation of current indices. J Refract Surg 34:840–847. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20181012-01CrossRefPubMed

73.

Elsheikh A, Geraghty B, Rama P, Campanelli M, Meek KM (2010) Characterization of age-related variation in corneal biomechanical properties. J R Soc Interface 7:1475–1485. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2010.0108CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

74.

Vinciguerra R, Elsheikh A, Roberts CJ, Ambrósio R Jr, Kang DSY, Lopes BT, Morenghi E, Azzolini C, Vinciguerra P (2016) Influence of pachymetry and intraocular pressure on dynamic corneal response parameters in healthy patients. J Refract Surg 32:550–561. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20160524-01CrossRefPubMed

75.

Vinciguerra R, Herber R, Wang Y, Zhang F, Zhou X, Bai J, Yu K, Chen S, Fang X, Raiskup F, Vinciguerra P (2022) Corneal biomechanics differences between Chinese and Caucasian healthy subjects. Front Med 9:834663. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.834663CrossRef

76.

Ambrósio R Jr, Machado AP, Leão E, Lyra JMG, Salomão MQ, Esporcatte LGP, Filho JBRDF, Ferreira-Meneses E, Sena NB, Haddad JS et al (2022) Optimized artificial intelligence for enhanced ectasia detection using Scheimpflug-based corneal tomography and biomechanical data. Am J Ophthalmol 251:126–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2022.12.016CrossRefPubMed

77.

Hashemi H, Heydarian S, Hooshmand E, Saatchi M, Yekta A, Aghamirsalim M, Valadkhan M, Mortazavi M, Hashemi A, Khabazkhoob M (2020) The prevalence and risk factors for keratoconus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cornea 39:263–270. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000002150CrossRefPubMed

78.

Henriquez MA, Hadid M, Izquierdo L Jr (2020) A systematic review of subclinical keratoconus and forme fruste keratoconus. J Refract Surg 36:270–279. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20200212-03CrossRefPubMed

79.

Huo Y, Chen X, Cao H, Li J, Hou J, Wang Y (2022) Biomechanical properties analysis of forme fruste keratoconus and subclinical keratoconus. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 261:1311–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05916-yCrossRefPubMed

80.

Martínez-Abad A, Piñero DP (2017) New perspectives on the detection and progression of keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 43:1213–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.07.021CrossRefPubMed

81.

Nichols JJ, Steger-May K, Edrington TB, Zadnik K, CLEK study group (2004) The relation between disease asymmetry and severity in keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol 88:788-791. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2003.034520

82.

Li X, Rabinowitz YS, Rasheed K, Yang H (2004) Longitudinal study of the normal eyes in unilateral keratoconus patients. Ophthalmology 111:440–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.06.020CrossRefPubMed

Title: Corneal biomechanics in early diagnosis of keratoconus using artificial intelligence
Authors: Yan Huo
Xuan Chen
Gauhar Ali Khan
Yan Wang
Publication date: 09-11-2023
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Artificial Intelligence
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Issue 4/2024
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-023-06307-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Corneal biomechanics in early diagnosis of keratoconus using artificial intelligence

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2024

Baseline intraocular pressure: an independent risk factor in severe steroid-induced ocular hypertension after intravitreal dexamethasone implant

Comparison of different corneal imaging modalities using artificial intelligence for diagnosis of keratoconus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Five-year outcomes of ab interno Xen 45 gel stent implantation

Angiographic characteristics and treatment approach in patients undergoing intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma

Optical coherence tomography angiography findings in Williams-Beuren syndrome

Measurement inaccuracies in widefield imaging—a cautionary tale