The Role of Optical Coherence Tomography Criteria and Machine Learning in Multiple Sclerosis and Optic Neuritis Diagnosis
- 28 June 2022
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Neurology
- Vol. 99 (11), e1100-e1112
- https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000200883
Abstract
Background and Objectives Recent studies have suggested that intereye differences (IEDs) in peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) or ganglion cell + inner plexiform (GCIPL) thickness by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) may identify people with a history of unilateral optic neuritis (ON). However, this requires further validation. Machine learning classification may be useful for validating thresholds for OCT IEDs and for examining added utility for visual function tests, such as low-contrast letter acuity (LCLA), in the diagnosis of people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) and for unilateral ON history. Methods Participants were from 11 sites within the International Multiple Sclerosis Visual System consortium. pRNFL and GCIPL thicknesses were measured using SD-OCT. A composite score combining OCT and visual measures was compared individual measurements to determine the best model to distinguish PwMS from controls. These methods were also used to distinguish those with a history of ON among PwMS. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed on a training data set (2/3 of cohort) and then applied to a testing data set (1/3 of cohort). Support vector machine (SVM) analysis was used to assess whether machine learning models improved diagnostic capability of OCT. Results Among 1,568 PwMS and 552 controls, variable selection models identified GCIPL IED, average GCIPL thickness (both eyes), and binocular 2.5% LCLA as most important for classifying PwMS vs controls. This composite score performed best, with area under the curve (AUC) = 0.89 (95% CI 0.85–0.93), sensitivity = 81%, and specificity = 80%. The composite score ROC curve performed better than any of the individual measures from the model (p < 0.0001). GCIPL IED remained the best single discriminator of unilateral ON history among PwMS (AUC = 0.77, 95% CI 0.71–0.83, sensitivity = 68%, specificity = 77%). SVM analysis performed comparably with standard logistic regression models. Discussion A composite score combining visual structure and function improved the capacity of SD-OCT to distinguish PwMS from controls. GCIPL IED best distinguished those with a history of unilateral ON. SVM performed as well as standard statistical models for these classifications. Classification of Evidence This study provides Class III evidence that SD-OCT accurately distinguishes multiple sclerosis from normal controls as compared with clinical criteria.This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Automated algorithms combining structure and function outperform general ophthalmologists in diagnosing glaucomaPLOS ONE, 2018
- Optimal Intereye Difference Thresholds in Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness for Predicting a Unilateral Optic Nerve Lesion in Multiple SclerosisJournal of Neuro-Ophthalmology, 2018
- Diagnostic accuracy of optical coherence tomography inter‐eye percentage difference for optic neuritis in multiple sclerosisEuropean Journal of Neurology, 2017
- Development of machine learning models for diagnosis of glaucomaPLOS ONE, 2017
- Validity of low-contrast letter acuity as a visual performance outcome measure for multiple sclerosisMultiple Sclerosis Journal, 2017
- The APOSTEL recommendations for reporting quantitative optical coherence tomography studiesNeurology, 2016
- Reliability of Intra-Retinal Layer Thickness EstimatesPLOS ONE, 2015
- Sensitivity and specificity of machine learning classifiers for glaucoma diagnosis using Spectral Domain OCT and standard automated perimetryArquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, 2013
- The OSCAR-IB Consensus Criteria for Retinal OCT Quality AssessmentPLOS ONE, 2012
- Comparing the Areas under Two or More Correlated Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves: A Nonparametric ApproachBiometrics, 1988