Abstract
Purpose
To develop classification criteria for 25 of the most common uveitides.
Design
Machine learning using 5,766 cases of 25 uveitides.
Methods
Cases were collected in an informatics-designed preliminary database. Using formal consensus techniques, a final database was constructed of 4,046 cases achieving supermajority agreement on the diagnosis. Cases were analyzed within uveitic class and were split into a training set and a validation set. Machine learning used multinomial logistic regression with lasso regularization on the training set to determine a parsimonious set of criteria for each disease and to minimize misclassification rates. The resulting criteria were evaluated in the validation set. Accuracy of the rules developed to express the machine learning criteria was evaluated by a masked observer in a 10% random sample of cases.
Results
Overall accuracy estimates by uveitic class in the validation set were as follows: anterior uveitides 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 92.4, 98.6); intermediate uveitides 99.3% (95% CI 96.1, 99.9); posterior uveitides 98.0% (95% CI 94.3, 99.3); panuveitides 94.0% (95% CI 89.0, 96.8); and infectious posterior uveitides / panuveitides 93.3% (95% CI 89.1, 96.3). Accuracies of the masked evaluation of the “rules” were anterior uveitides 96.5% (95% CI 91.4, 98.6) intermediate uveitides 98.4% (91.5, 99.7), posterior uveitides 99.2% (95% CI 95.4, 99.9), panuveitides 98.9% (95% CI 94.3, 99.8), and infectious posterior uveitides / panuveitides 98.8% (95% CI 93.4, 99.9).
Conclusions
The classification criteria for these 25 uveitides had high overall accuracy (ie, low misclassification rates) and seemed to perform well enough for use in clinical and translational research.
To develop classification criteria for 25 of the most common uveitides.
Design
Machine learning using 5,766 cases of 25 uveitides.
Methods
Cases were collected in an informatics-designed preliminary database. Using formal consensus techniques, a final database was constructed of 4,046 cases achieving supermajority agreement on the diagnosis. Cases were analyzed within uveitic class and were split into a training set and a validation set. Machine learning used multinomial logistic regression with lasso regularization on the training set to determine a parsimonious set of criteria for each disease and to minimize misclassification rates. The resulting criteria were evaluated in the validation set. Accuracy of the rules developed to express the machine learning criteria was evaluated by a masked observer in a 10% random sample of cases.
Results
Overall accuracy estimates by uveitic class in the validation set were as follows: anterior uveitides 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 92.4, 98.6); intermediate uveitides 99.3% (95% CI 96.1, 99.9); posterior uveitides 98.0% (95% CI 94.3, 99.3); panuveitides 94.0% (95% CI 89.0, 96.8); and infectious posterior uveitides / panuveitides 93.3% (95% CI 89.1, 96.3). Accuracies of the masked evaluation of the “rules” were anterior uveitides 96.5% (95% CI 91.4, 98.6) intermediate uveitides 98.4% (91.5, 99.7), posterior uveitides 99.2% (95% CI 95.4, 99.9), panuveitides 98.9% (95% CI 94.3, 99.8), and infectious posterior uveitides / panuveitides 98.8% (95% CI 93.4, 99.9).
Conclusions
The classification criteria for these 25 uveitides had high overall accuracy (ie, low misclassification rates) and seemed to perform well enough for use in clinical and translational research.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 96-105 |
Number of pages | 10 |
Journal | American Journal of Ophthalmology |
Volume | 228 |
Early online date | 20 Apr 2021 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Aug 2021 |
Keywords
- Uveitides
- classification criteria