American journal of ophthalmology · 2021
Standard Reliability and Gaze Tracking Metrics in Glaucoma and Glaucoma Suspects.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Camp Andrew Steven, Long Christopher P, Patella Vincent Michael, Proudfoot James A, Weinreb Robert N
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare standard reliability metrics and gaze tracking (GT) metrics on the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA).
DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study.
METHODS: The study was performed at the VA Medical Center, San Diego, and included 494 glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients who had an HFA 24-2 SITA Fast visual field (VF) performed in both eyes. Standard reliability metrics (fixation loss [FL], false-positive [FP], and false-negative [FN]) were compared to GT metrics (deviations of 1°-2° [M1], deviations of 3°-5° [M3], deviations >6° [M6], and tracking failure frequency [TFF]). The main outcome measures were Spearman rank-based correlation coefficient and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves between standard and GT reliability metrics.
RESULTS: The 95th percentile limits for GT metrics were 66.7% for M1, 67.5% for M3, 49.5% for M6, and 79.8% for TFF. There were statistically significant correlations between standard and GT reliability metrics using the 95th percentile as a binary cutoff for GT metrics. However, low Spearman correlation values and AUROC calculations suggest little clinical significance of the associations. FN increased as VF severity worsened (P < .001). M6 was lower in eyes with mild compared to moderate and advanced VF loss (P = .012).
CONCLUSIONS: GT metrics do not have a clinically significant association with standard reliability metrics. Both FN and M6 are influenced by VF severity. Aggregate GT metrics do not aid in reliability assessment. These findings suggest that GT metrics may provide an alternative or complementary measure of VF reliability.
DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study.
METHODS: The study was performed at the VA Medical Center, San Diego, and included 494 glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients who had an HFA 24-2 SITA Fast visual field (VF) performed in both eyes. Standard reliability metrics (fixation loss [FL], false-positive [FP], and false-negative [FN]) were compared to GT metrics (deviations of 1°-2° [M1], deviations of 3°-5° [M3], deviations >6° [M6], and tracking failure frequency [TFF]). The main outcome measures were Spearman rank-based correlation coefficient and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves between standard and GT reliability metrics.
RESULTS: The 95th percentile limits for GT metrics were 66.7% for M1, 67.5% for M3, 49.5% for M6, and 79.8% for TFF. There were statistically significant correlations between standard and GT reliability metrics using the 95th percentile as a binary cutoff for GT metrics. However, low Spearman correlation values and AUROC calculations suggest little clinical significance of the associations. FN increased as VF severity worsened (P < .001). M6 was lower in eyes with mild compared to moderate and advanced VF loss (P = .012).
CONCLUSIONS: GT metrics do not have a clinically significant association with standard reliability metrics. Both FN and M6 are influenced by VF severity. Aggregate GT metrics do not aid in reliability assessment. These findings suggest that GT metrics may provide an alternative or complementary measure of VF reliability.