Glaucoma detection with frequency doubling perimetry and short-wavelength perimetry

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 363-371

  Horn, Folkert K ^a   Brenning, Alexander ^b   Jünemann, Anselm G ^a   Lausen, Berthold ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ERLANGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Double bagging; Frequency doubling technique; Glaucoma; Machine learning technique; Shortwavelength perimetry

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALGORITHM; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; ATROPHY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED PERIMETRY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FEMALE; FREQUENCY DOUBLING TECHNOLOGY PERIMETRY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LEARNING; MACHINE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NERVE FIBER; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OPTIC DISK; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM; SCREENING TEST; SHORT WAVELENGTH AUTOMATED PERIMETRY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT;

EID: 34250641516     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e318032e4c2     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Casson R, James B, Rubinstein A, et al. Clinical comparison of frequency doubling technology perimetry and Humphrey perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:360-362.
2. Johnson CA, Samuels SJ. Screening for glaucomatous visual field loss with frequency-doubling perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:413-425.
3. Paczka JA, Friedman DS, Quigley HQ, et al. Diagnostic capabilities of frequency-doubling technology, scanning laser polarimetry, and nerve fiber layer photographs to distinguish glaucomatous damage. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131:188-197.
4. Quigley HA. Identification of glaucoma-related visual field abnormality with the screening protocol of frequency doubling technology. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:819-829.
5. Sample PA, Bosworth CF, Blumenthal EZ, et al. Visual functionspecific perimetry for indirect comparison of different ganglion cell populations in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:1783-1790.
6. Fabre K, Michiels I, Zeyen T. The sensitivity and specificity of TOP, FDP and GDX in screening for early glaucoma. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2000;275:17-23.
7. Patel SC, Friedman DS, Varadkar P, et al. Algorithm for interpreting the results of frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:323-327.
8. Burnstein Y, Ellish NJ, Magbalon M, et al. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry with humphrey visual field analysis in a glaucoma practice. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:328-333.
9. Trible JR, Schultz RO, Robinson JC, et al. Accuracy of glaucoma detection with frequency-doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:740-745.
10. Stoutenbeek R, Heeg GP, Jansonius NM. Frequency doubling perimetry screening mode compared to the full-threshold mode. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004;24:493-497.
11. Chauhan BC, Johnson CA. Test-retest variability of frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional perimetry in glaucoma patients and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:648-656.
12. Iester M, Capris P, Pandolfo A, et al. Learning effect, short-term fluctuation, and long-term fluctuation in frequency doubling technique. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:160-164.
13. Seguhn S, Spiegel D. Comparison of frequency doubling perimetry and standard achromatic computerized perimetry in patients with glaucoma. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2001;239:51-355.
14. Iester M, Mermoud A, Schnyder C. Frequency doubling technique in patients with ocular hyper-tension and glaucoma: correlation with Octopus perimeter indices. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:288-294.
15. Sponsel WE, Arango S, Trigo Y, et al. Clinical classification of glaucomatous visual field loss by frequency doubling perimetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:830-836.
16. Mansberger SL, Sample PA, Zangwill L, et al. Achromatic and short-wavelength automated perimetry in patients with glaucomatous large cups. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1473-1477.
17. Mok KH, Lee VW. Nerve fiber analyzer and short-wavelength automated perimetry in glaucoma suspects: a pilot study. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:2101-2104.
18. Girkin CA, Emdadi A, Sample PA, et al. Short-wavelength automated perimetry and standard perimetry in the detection of progressive optic disc cupping. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:1231-1236.
19. Teesalu P, Vihanninjoki K, Airaksinen PJ, et al. Correlation of blue-on-yellow visual fields with scanning confocal laser optic disc measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:2452-2459.
20. Ugurlu S, Hoffman D, Garway-Heath DF, et al. Relationship between structural abnormalities and short-wavelength perimetric defects in eyes at risk of glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:592-598.
21. Polo V, Larrosa JM, Pinilla I, et al. Predictive value of short-wavelength automated perimetry: a 3-year follow-up study. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:761-765.
22. Johnson CA, Sample PA, Zangwill LM, et al. Structure and function evaluation (SAFE): II. Comparison of optic disk and visual field characteristics. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135:148-154.
23. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, et al. Progression of early glaucomatous visual field loss as detected by blue-on-yellow and standard white-on-white automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:651-656.
24. Jonas JB, Gusek GC, Naumann GOH. Optic disc morphometry in chronic primary open angle glaucoma. II. Correlation of the intrapapillary morphometric data to visual field indices. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1988;226:531-538.
25. Jonas JB, Budde WM, Panda-Jonas S. Ophthalmoscopic evaluation of the optic nerve head. Surv Ophthalmol. 1999;43:293-320.
26. Adams CW, Bullimore MA, Wall M, et al. Normal aging effects for frequency doubling technology perimetry. Optom Vis Sci. 1997;76:582-587.
27. Horn FK, Wakili N, Junemann AM, et al. Testing for glaucoma with frequency-doubling perimetry in normals, ocular hypertensives, and glaucoma patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002;240:658-665.
28. Mojon DS, Zulauf M. Normal values of short-wavelength automated perimetry. Ophthalmologica. 2003;217:260-264.
29. Weber J. Perimetry equivalents of glaucoma progression. Ophthalmologe. 1992;89:175-189.
30. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Cello KE, et al, Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group. Classification of visual field abnormalities in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:643-650.
31. Garway-Heath DF, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, et al. Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1809-1815.
32. Hothorn T, Lausen B. Double-bagging: combining classifiers by bootstrap aggregation. Pattern Recognition. 2003;36:1303-1309.
33. Hothorn T, Lausen B. Bagging tree classifiers for laser scanning images: a data- and simulation-based strategy. Artif Intelligence Med. 2003;27:65-79.
34. Hothorn T, Lausen B. Bundling classifiers by bagging trees. Comp Stat Data Anal. 2005;49:1068-1078.
35. Lindenberg T, Peters A, Horn FK, et al. Diagnostic value of multifocal VEP using cross-validation and noise reduction in glaucoma research. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;242:361-367.
36. Mardin CY, Hothorn T, Peters A, et al. New glaucoma classification method based on standard HRT parameters by bagging classification trees. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:340-346.
37. Mardin CY, Peters A, Horn FK, et al. Improving glaucoma diagnosis by the combination of perimetry and HRT measurements. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:299-305.
38. Hand D. Construction and assessment of classification rules. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1997.
39. Ihaka R, Gentleman R. A language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat. 1996;5:299-314.
40. Peters A, Hothorn T, Lausen B. ipred: improved predictors. R News. 2002;2:33-36.
41. Khong JJ, Dimitrov PN, Rait J, et al. Can the specificity of the FDT for glaucoma be improved by confirming abnormal results? J Glaucoma. 2001;10:199-202.
42. Mu"skens RP, Heeg GP, Jansonius NM. An evaluation of algorithms designed to classify the results from frequency doubling perimetry. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004;24:498-503.
43. Heron G, Adams AJ, Husted R. Central visual fields for short-wavelength sensitive pathways in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1988;29:64-72.
44. Mistlberger A, Liebmann JM, Greenfield DS, et al. Assessment of optic disc anatomy and nerve fiber layer thickness in ocular hypertensive subjects with normal short-wavelength automated perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1362-1366.
45. Horn FK, Jonas JB, Budde WM, et al. Monitoring glaucoma progression with visual evoked potentials of the blue-sensitive pathway. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1828-1834.
46. Jonas JB, Zach FM. Color vision defects in chronic open angle glaucoma. Fortschr Ophthalmol. 1990;87:255-259.
47. Bowd C, Zangwill L, Berry CC, et al. Detecting early glaucoma by assessment of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and visual function. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1993-2003.
48. Spry PG, Johnson CA, Mansberger SL, et al. Psychophysical investigation of ganglion cell loss in early glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:11-19.
49. Yamada N, Chen PP, Mills RP, et al. Screening for glaucoma with frequency-doubling technology and Damato campimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1479-1484.
50. Brusini P, Busatto P. Frequency doubling perimetry in glaucoma early diagnosis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;227:23-24.
51. Hollo G, Szabo A, Vrgha P. Scanning laser polarimetry versus frequency-doubling perimetry and conventional threshold perimetry: changes during an 12-month follow-up in preperimetric glaucoma. A pilot study. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2001;79:403-407.
52. Landers JA, Goldberg I, Graham SL. Comparison of clinical optic disc assessment with tests of early visual field loss. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002;30:338-342.
53. Bayer AU, Erb C. Short-wavelength automated perimetry, frequency doubling technology perimetry, and pattern electroretinography for prediction of progressive glaucomatous standard visual field defects. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1009-1017.
54. Delgado MF, Nguyen NT, Cox TA, et al. Automated perimetry: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:2362-2374.
55. Soliman MA, de Jong LA, Ismaeil AA, et al. Standard achromatic perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry, and frequency doubling technology for detection of glaucoma damage. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:444-454.
56. Bengtsson B. A new rapid threshold algorithm for short-wavelength automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:1388-1394.
57. Kogure S, Membrey WL, Fitzke FW, et al. Effect of decreased retinal illumination on frequency doubling technology. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2000;44:489-493.
58. Remky A, Arend O. Intra-individual variability of blue-yellow perimetry. Ophthalmologe. 2000;97:774-780.
59. Kwon YH, Park HJ, Jap A, et al. Test-retest variability of blue-onyellow perimetry is greater than white-on-white perimetry in normal subjects. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126:29-36.
60. Hutchings N, Hosking SL, Wild JM, et al. Long-term fluctuation in short-wavelength automated perimetry in glaucoma suspects and glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:2332-2337.
61. Wild JM, Moss ID. Baseline alterations in blue-on-yellow normal perimetric sensitivity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1996;234:141-149.
62. Breiman L. Bagging predictors. Machine Learn. 1996;24:123-140.
63. Läuter J, Glimm E, Kropf S. Multivariate tests based on left-spherically distributed linear scores. Ann Stat. 1998;26:1972-1988.