A new approach to measure visual field progression in glaucoma patients using variational bayes linear regression

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 55, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 8386-8392

  Murata, Hiroshi ^a   Araie, Makoto ^a,b   Asaoka, Ryo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^b Mutual Aid Association of Public School Teachers   (Japan)

Author keywords

E M algorithm; Glaucoma; Progression; Variational Bayes; Visual field

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; HUMPHREY PERIMETER; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; PREDICTION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL MODEL; VARIATIONAL BAYES LINEAR REGRESSION; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL FIELD DEFECT; COMPLICATION; DISEASE COURSE; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERIMETRY; PHYSIOLOGY; SCOTOMA;

BAYES THEOREM; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SCOTOMA; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84919798264     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.14-14625     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:262- 267.
2. Altangerel U, Spaeth GL, Rhee DJ. Visual function, disability, and psychological impact of glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2003;14:100-105.
3. Viswanathan AC, Crabb DP, McNaught AI, et al. Interobserver agreement on visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of methods. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:726-730.
4. O'Leary N, Chauhan BC, Artes PH. Visual field progression in glaucoma: estimating the overall significance of deterioration with permutation analyses of pointwise linear regression (PoPLR). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:6776-6784.
5. Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA, Poinoosawmy D, McNaught AI, Crabb DP. Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:40-48.
6. Caprioli J, Mock D, Bitrian E, et al. A method to measure and predict rates of regional visual field decay in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;527:4765-4773.
7. Mikelberg FS, Schulzer M, Drance SM, Lau W. The rate of progression of scotomas in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986;101:1-6.
8. Pathak M, Demirel S, Gardiner SK. Nonlinear, multilevel mixedeffects approach for modeling longitudinal standard automated perimetry data in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:5505-5513.
9. McNaught AI, Crabb DP, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Modelling series of visual fields to detect progression in normal-tension glaucoma. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1995;233: 750-755.
10. Bryan SR, Vermeer KA, Eilers PH, Lemij HG, Lesaffre EM. Robust and censored modeling and prediction of progression in glaucomatous visual fields. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54:6694-6700.
11. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Mock D, Hosseini H, et al. Pointwise rates of visual field progression cluster according to retinal nerve fiber layer bundles. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:2390-2394.
12. Russell RA, Malik R, Chauhan BC, Crabb DP, Garway-Heath DF. Improved estimates of visual field progression using bayesian linear regression to integrate structural information in patients with ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53: 2760-2769.
13. Betz-Stablein BD, Morgan WH, House PH, Hazelton MA. Spatial modeling of visual field data for assessing glaucoma progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:1544-1553.
14. Drance SM. The early field defects in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol. 1969;8:84-91.
15. Park SC, De Moraes CG, Teng CC, Tello C, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Initial parafoveal versus peripheral scotomas in glaucoma: risk factors and visual field characteristics. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:1782-1789.
16. Nakagami T, Yamazaki Y, Hayamizu F. Prognostic factors for progression of visual field damage in patients with normaltension glaucoma. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2006;50:38-43.
17. Mandava S, Zulauf M, Zeyen T, Caprioli J. An evaluation of clusters in the glaucomatous visual field. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;116:684-691.
18. Suzuki Y, Kitazawa Y, Araie M, et al. Mathematical and optimal clustering of test points of the central 30-degree visual field of glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2001;10:121-128.
19. Suzuki Y, Araie M, Ohashi Y. Sectorization of the central 30 degrees visual field in glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1993;100: 69-75.
20. Goldbaum MH, Sample PA, Chan, K, et al. Comparing machine learning classifiers for diagnosing glaucoma from standard automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43: 162-169.
21. Elhamifar E, Vidal R. Sparse subspace clustering: algorithm, theory, and applications. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intel. 2013;35:2765-2781.
22. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Girkin CA, Liebmann JM, Weinreb RN. Combining structural and functional measurements to improve estimates of rates of glaucomatous progression. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:1197-1205.
23. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Mansouri K, Lisboa R, Tafreshi A, Weinreb RN. Incorporating risk factors to improve the assessment of rates of glaucomatous progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:2199-2207.
24. Zhu H, Russell RA, Saunders LJ, Ceccon S, Garway-Heath DF, Crabb DP. Detecting changes in retinal function: analysis with non-stationary weibull error regression and spatial enhancement (ANSWERS). PLoS One. 2014;9:e85654.
25. McLachlan G, Peel D. Finite Mixture Models. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
26. Katahira K, Watanabe K, Okada M. Deterministic annealing variant of variational Bayes method. J Phys Conf Ser. 2008;95: 012015.
27. Ueda N, Nakano R. Deterministic annealing EM algorithm. Neural Netw. 1998;11:271-282.
28. Sanderson C. Armadillo: an open source C++ linear algebra library for fast prototyping and computationally intensive experiments; technical report. St. Lucia, Australia: NICTA; 2010.
29. Krakau CE. A statistical trap in the evaluation of visual field decay. Acta Ophthalmol. 1985;173(suppl):19-21.
30. Holmin C, Krakau CE. Regression analysis of the central visual field in chronic glaucoma cases. A follow-up study using automatic perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol. 1982;60:267-274.
31. Spry PG, Bates AB, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC. Simulation of longitudinal threshold visual field data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:2192-200.
32. Jansonius NM. On the accuracy of measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94:1404- 1405.
33. Chauhan BC, Garway-Heath DF, Goni FJ, et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:569-573.
34. Malik R, Baker H, Russell RA, Crabb DP. A survey of attitudes of glaucoma subspecialists in England and Wales to visual field test intervals in relation to NICE guidelines. BMJ Open. 2013; 3:e002067.
35. Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114:19-22.
36. Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Johnson CA. Is there evidence for continued learning over multiple years in perimetry? Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85:1043-1048.
37. Araie M, Hori J, Koseki N. Comparison of visual field defects between normal-tension and primary open-angle glaucoma in the late stage of the disease. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1995;233:610-616.
38. Levene RZ. Low tension glaucoma: a critical review and new material. Surv Ophthalmol. 1980;24:621-664.
39. Caprioli J, Spaeth GL. Comparison of visual field defects in the low-tension glaucomas with those in the high-tension glaucomas. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984;97:730-737.
40. Chauhan BC, Drance SM, Douglas GR, Johnson CA. Visual field damage in normal-tension and high-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108:636-642.
41. Caprioli J, Sears M, Spaeth GL. Comparison of visual field defects in normal-tension glaucoma and high-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986;102:402-404.
42. Drance SM, Douglas GR, Airaksinen PJ, Schulzer M, Hitchings RA. Diffuse visual field loss in chronic open-angle and lowtension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1987;104:577-580.
43. Jacobs RA, Jordan MI, Nowlan MI, et al. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural Comput. 1991;3:79-87.
44. Russell RA, Crabb DP. On alternative methods for measuring visual field decay: Tobit linear regression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:9539-9540.
45. Bishop CM, Nasrabadi NM. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Springer; 2006.