Translational vision science & technology · 2020
Inter-Eye Association of Visual Field Defects in Glaucoma and Its Clinical Utility.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Teng Bettina, Li Dian, Choi Eun Young, Shen Lucy Q, Pasquale Louis R, Boland Michael V, Ramulu Pradeep, Wellik Sarah R, De Moraes Carlos Gustavo, Myers Jonathan S, Yousefi Siamak, Nguyen Thao, Fan Yuying, Wang Hui, Bex Peter J, Elze Tobias, Wang Mengyu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate intereye associations of visual field (VF) defects.
METHODS: We selected 24-2 VF pairs of both eyes from 63,604 patients tested on the same date with mean deviation (MD) ≥ -12 dB. VFs were decomposed into one normal and 15 defect patterns previously identified using archetypal analysis. VF pattern weighting coefficients were correlated between the worse and better eyes, as defined by MD. VF defect patterns (weighting coefficients > 10%) in the better eye were predicted from weighting coefficients of the worse eye by logistic regression models, which were evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
RESULTS: Intereye correlations of archetypal VF patterns were strongest for the same defect pattern between fellow eyes. The AUCs for predicting the presence of 15 defect patterns in the better eye based on the worse eye ranged from 0.69 (superior nasal step) to 0.92 (near total loss). The AUC for predicting superior paracentral loss was 0.89. Superior paracentral loss in the better eye was positively correlated with coefficients of superior paracentral loss, central scotoma, superior altitudinal defect, nasal hemianopia, and inferior paracentral loss in the worse eye, and negatively correlated with coefficients of the normal VF, superior peripheral defect, concentric peripheral defect, and temporal wedge. The parameters are presented in the descending order of statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: VF patterns of the worse eye are predictive of VF defects in the better eye.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Our models can potentially assist clinicians to better interpret VF loss under measurement uncertainty.
METHODS: We selected 24-2 VF pairs of both eyes from 63,604 patients tested on the same date with mean deviation (MD) ≥ -12 dB. VFs were decomposed into one normal and 15 defect patterns previously identified using archetypal analysis. VF pattern weighting coefficients were correlated between the worse and better eyes, as defined by MD. VF defect patterns (weighting coefficients > 10%) in the better eye were predicted from weighting coefficients of the worse eye by logistic regression models, which were evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
RESULTS: Intereye correlations of archetypal VF patterns were strongest for the same defect pattern between fellow eyes. The AUCs for predicting the presence of 15 defect patterns in the better eye based on the worse eye ranged from 0.69 (superior nasal step) to 0.92 (near total loss). The AUC for predicting superior paracentral loss was 0.89. Superior paracentral loss in the better eye was positively correlated with coefficients of superior paracentral loss, central scotoma, superior altitudinal defect, nasal hemianopia, and inferior paracentral loss in the worse eye, and negatively correlated with coefficients of the normal VF, superior peripheral defect, concentric peripheral defect, and temporal wedge. The parameters are presented in the descending order of statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: VF patterns of the worse eye are predictive of VF defects in the better eye.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Our models can potentially assist clinicians to better interpret VF loss under measurement uncertainty.