| Study characteristics |
| Patient Sampling |
Case‐control study. 250 cases were extracted and a physician made the medical diagnoses. Medical evaluations were found in the data set Dataverse. |
| Patient characteristics and setting |
The study included people with keratoconus and healthy controls. Further participant characteristics are described in Dataverse. |
| Index tests |
Convolutional neural network using a 3D reconstruction of corneal images as input. The output was healthy or keratoconus. The algorithm also defined severity of keratoconus. |
| Target condition and reference standard(s) |
The OCT SS‐1000 (CASIA) was used to make the corneal images. The diagnosis was made by a physician. All cases were diagnosed before the algorithm analysed the images. |
| Flow and timing |
All cases were included in the reference standard and index test. All data were included in a 2 × 2 table. |
| Comparative |
Not applicable |
| Notes |
This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University through the Fast‐track Research Funding Program. |
| Methodological quality |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Risk of bias |
Applicability concerns |
| DOMAIN 1: Patient selection |
| Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? |
Unclear |
|
|
| Was a case‐control design avoided? |
No |
|
|
| Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? |
Unclear |
|
|
| Could the selection of patients have introduced bias? |
|
High risk |
|
| Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question? |
|
|
High |
| DOMAIN 2: Index test (All tests) |
| Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? |
Unclear |
|
|
| If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? |
Unclear |
|
|
| Was the model designed in an appropriate manner? |
Yes |
|
|
| Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias? |
|
Unclear risk |
|
| Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question? |
|
|
Low concern |
| DOMAIN 3: Reference standard |
| Is the reference standard likely to correctly classify the target condition? |
No |
|
|
| Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? |
Yes |
|
|
| Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias? |
|
High risk |
|
| Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question? |
|
|
Unclear |
| DOMAIN 4: Flow and timing |
| Did all patients receive the same reference standard? |
Yes |
|
|
| Were all patients included in the analysis? |
Yes |
|
|
| Could the patient flow have introduced bias? |
|
Low risk |
|
| DOMAIN 5: Comparative |
