Predicting visual function from the measurements of retinal nerve fiber layer structure

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 51, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 5657-5666

  Zhu, Haogang ^a,b   Crabb, David P ^a   Schlottmann, Patricio G ^b   Lemij, Hans G ^c   Reus, Nicolaas J ^c   Healey, Paul R ^d   Mitchell, Paul ^d   Ho, Tuan ^b   Garway Heath, David F ^b  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c ROTTERDAM EYE HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR HYPERTENSION; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERIMETRY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIAL BASED FUNCTION; RETINAL NERVE FIBER LAYER THICKNESS; SCANNING LASER POLARIMETRY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; VISUAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA, OPEN-ANGLE; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NERVE FIBERS; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; OPTIC DISK; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETINAL GANGLION CELLS; SCANNING LASER POLARIMETRY; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79956017926     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-5239     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Anderson RS. The psychophysics of glaucoma: improving the structure-function relationship. Prog Ret Eye Res. 2006;25:79-97.
2. Brigatti L, Caprioli J. Correlation of visual field with scanning confocal laser optic disc measurements in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol.1995;113(9):1191-1194.
3. Weinreb RN, Shakiba S, Sample PA, et al. Association between quantitative nerve fiber layer measurement and visual field loss in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120:732-738.
4. Iester M, Mikelberg FS, Courtright P, Drance SM. Correlation between the visual field indices and Heidelberg retina tomograph parameters. J Glaucoma. 1997;6(2):78-82.
5. Teesalu P, Vihanninjoki K, Airaksinen P, Tuulonen A, Laara E. Correlation of blue-on-yellow visual fields with scanning confocal laser optic disc measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997; 38:2452-2459.
6. Garway-Heath DF, Holder GE, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Relationship between electrophysiological, psychophysical, and anatomical measurements in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002; 43:2213-2220.
7. Garway-Heath DF, Viswanathan A, Westcott M. Relationship between perimetric light sensitivity and optic disc neuroretinal rim area. In: Wall M, Wild JM, eds. Perimetry Update 1998/1999. The Hague, The Netherlands: Kugler Publications; 1999:381-389.
8. Anton A, Yamagishi N, Zangwill L, Sample P, Weinreb R. Mapping structural to functional damage in glaucoma with standard automated perimetry and confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125(4):436-446.
9. Gardiner SK, Johnson CA, Cioffi GA. Evaluation of the structure- function relationship in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci.2005;46:3712-3717.
10. Mai TA, Reus NJ, Lemij HG. Structure-function relationship is stronger with enhanced corneal compensation than with variable corneal compensation in scanning laser polarimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:1651-1658.
11. Bowd C, Zangwill LM, Medeiros FA, et al. Structure and function in glaucoma: the relationship between a functional visual field map and an anatomic retinal map. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47: 2889-2895.
12. Schlottmann PG, Cilla SD, Greenfield DS, Caprioli J, Garway-Heath DF. Relationship between visual field sensitivity and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness as measured by scanning laser polarimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:1823-1829.
13. Powell MJD. Radial basis functions for multivariate interpolation: a review. In: Mason JC, Cox MG, eds. Algorithms for the Approximation of Functions and Data: Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press; 1987:143-167.
14. Orr MJL. Introduction to Radial Basis Function Networks. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: Center for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh; 1996.
15. Poggio T, Girosi F. Networks for approximation and learning. Proc IEEE. 1990;78:1481-1497.
16. Bishop CM. Neural Network for Pattern Recognition: Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1996.
17. Reus NJ, Lemij HG. Relationships between standard automated Perimetry, HRT confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, and GDx VCC scanning laser polarimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:4182-4188.
18. Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Cello KE, et al. Classification of visual field abnormalities in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:643-650.
19. Mitchell P, Smith W, Attebo K, Healey PR. Prevalence of openangle glaucoma in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology.1996;103:1661-1669.
20. Greenfield D. Optic nerve and retinal nerve fiber layer analyzers in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2002;13:68-76.
21. Reus NJ, Colen TP, Lemij HG. Visualization of localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects with the GDx with individualized and with fixed compensation of anterior segment birefringence. Ophthalmology.2003;110:1512-1516.
22. Zhu H, Crabb DP, Garway-Heath DF. A Bayesian radial basis function model to link retinal structure and visual function in glaucoma. The 3rd International Conference of Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering. Beijing. New York: IEEE; 2009:1-4.
23. Hocking RR. The analysis and selection of variables in linear regression. Biometrics. 1976;32:1-49.
24. Cohen J. Multiple Regression as a general data-analytic system. Psychol Bull. 1968;70:426-443.
25. Harwerth RS, Carter-Dawson L, Smith EL, Crawford ML. Scaling the structure-function relationship for clinical perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005;83:448-455.
26. Gonzalez-Hernandez M, Pablo LE, Armas-Domingue K, Vega RR, Ferreras A, Rosa MG. Structure-function relationship depends on glaucoma severity. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:1195-1199.
27. Tipping ME. The relevance vector machine. In: Solla SA, Leen TK, Muller KR, eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2000:652-658.
28. Jolliffe IT. Principal Component Analysis. New York: Springer; 1986.
29. Copas JB. Regression, prediction and shrinkage (with discussion). J Roy Stat Soc B Met. 1983;45:311-354.
30. Altman DG, Royston P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model. Stat Med. 2000;19:453-473.
31. Miller AJ. Selection of subsets of regression variables (with discussion). J Roy Stat Soc A Stat. 1984;147:389-425.
32. Artes PH, Iwase A, Ohno Y, Kitazawa Y, Chauhan BC. Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, SITA standard, and SITA fast strategies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2654-2659.
33. Garway-Heath DF, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1809-1815.
34. Bowd C, Chan K, Zangwill LM, et al. Comparing neural networks and linear discriminant functions for glaucoma detection using confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy of the optic disc. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:3444-3454.
35. Goldbaum MH, Sample PA, White H, et al. Interpretation of automated perimetry for glaucoma by neural network. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:3362-3373.
36. Bengtsson B, Bizios D, Heijl A. Effects of input data on the performance of a neural network in distinguishing normal and glaucomatous visual fields. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:3730-3736.
37. Brigatti L, Hoffman D, Caprioli J. Neural networks to identify glaucoma with structural and functional measurements. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;121:511-521.
38. Uchida H, Brigatti L, Caprioli J. Detection of structural damage from glaucoma with confocal laser image analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996;37:2393-2401.
39. Brigatti L, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Weitzman M, Caprioli J. Automatic detection of glaucomatous visual field progression with neural networks. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:725-728.
40. Spenceley SE, Henson DB, Bull DR. Visual field analysis using artificial neural networks. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007;14:239-248.
41. Wyatt HJ, Dul MW, Swanson WH. Variability of visual field measurements is correlated with the gradient of visual sensitivity. Vision Res. 2007;47:925-936.
42. Blumenthal EZ, Horani A, Sasikumar R, Garudadri C, Udaykumar A, Thomas R. Correlating structure with function in end-stage glaucoma. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2006;37:218-223.
43. Yanagisawa M, Tomidokoro A, Saito H, et al. Atypical retardation pattern in measurements of scanning laser polarimetry and its relating factors. Eye. 2009;23:1796-1801.
44. Sharma AK, Gold Berg I, Graham SL, Mohsin M. Comparison of the Humphrey Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) and full threshold strategies. J Glaucoma. 2000;9:20-27.
45. Hood DC, Anderson SC, Wall M, Kardon RH. Structure versus Function in glaucoma: an application of a linear model. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:3662-3668.
46. Hood DC, Kardon RH. A framework for comparing structural and functional measures of glaucomatous damage. Prog Retin Eye Res.2007;26:688-710.
47. Thayananthan A, Navaratnam R, Stenger B, Torr PHS, Cipolla R. Multivariate relevance vector machines for tracking. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV'06). Graz, Austria. New York: Springer 2006:124-138.