Identifying ‘‘preperimetric’’ glaucoma in standard automated perimetry visual fields

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 55, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 7814-7820

  Asaoka, Ryo ^a   Iwase, Aiko ^b   Hirasawa, Kazunori ^a,c   Murata, Hiroshi ^a   Araie, Makoto ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^b Tajimi Iwase Eye Clinic   (Japan)

^c KITASATO UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Japan)

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

Author keywords

Glaucoma; Preperimetric stage; Random Forests method; Visual field

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; MALE; OPEN ANGLE GLAUCOMA; OPHTHALMOSCOPY; PERIMETRY; PREPERIMETRIC GLAUCOMA VISUAL FIELD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOM FOREST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELD; AGED; CASE CONTROL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC;

AGED; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 84922482121     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.14-15120     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Quigley HA, Dunkelberger GR, Green WR. Retinal ganglion cell atrophy correlated with automated perimetry in human eyes with glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;107:453–464
2. Sugimoto K, Murata H, Hirasawa H, et al. Cross-sectional study: does combining optical coherence tomography measurements using the ‘Random Forest’ decision tree classifier improve the prediction of the presence of perimetric deterioration in glaucoma suspects? BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003114
3. Asaoka R, Ishii R, Kyu N, et al. Early detection of thinning of retinal nerve fiber layer in glaucomatous eyes by optical coherence tomography 3000: analysis of retinal nerve fiber layer corresponding to the preserved hemivisual field. Ophthalmic Res. 2006;38:29–35
4. Sung MS, Yoon JH, Park SW. Diagnostic validity of macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness deviation map algorithm using Cirrus HD-OCT in preperimetric and early glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2013;23:e144–151
5. Lisboa R, Paranhos A Jr, Weinreb RN, et al. Comparison of different spectral domain OCT scanning protocols for diagnosing preperimetric glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:3417–3425
6. Jeoung JW, Kim TW, Weinreb RN, et al. Diagnostic ability of spectral-domain versus time-domain optical coherence tomography in preperimetric glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2013;23:299–306
7. Lisboa R, Leite MT, Zangwill LM, et al. Diagnosing preperimetric glaucoma with spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:2261–2269
8. Kim HG, Heo H, Park SW. Comparison of scanning laser polarimetry and optical coherence tomography in preperimetric glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88:124–129
9. Baraibar B, Sanchez-Cano A, Pablo LE, et al. Preperimetric glaucoma assessment with scanning laser polarimetry (GDx VCC): analysis of retinal nerve fiber layer by sectors. J Glaucoma. 2007;16:659–664
10. Ferreras A, Polo V, Larrosa JM, et al. Can frequency-doubling technology and short-wavelength automated perimetries detect visual field defects before standard automated perimetry in patients with preperimetric glaucoma? J Glaucoma. 2007;16:372–383
11. Hirashima T, Hangai M, Nukada M, et al. Frequency-doubling technology and retinal measurements with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in preperimetric glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251:129–137
12. Kamantigue ME, Joson PJ, Chen PP. Prediction of visual field defects on standard automated perimetry by screening C-20-1 frequency doubling technology perimetry. J Glaucoma. 2006; 15:35–39
13. Landers JA, Goldberg I, Graham SL. Detection of early visual field loss in glaucoma using frequency-doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:1705–1710
14. Kogure S, Toda Y, Tsukahara S. Prediction of future scotoma on conventional automated static perimetry using frequency doubling technology perimetry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90: 347–352
15. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137:863–871
16. Leeprechanon N, Giaconi JA, Manassakorn A, et al. Frequency doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry to detect early glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:931–937
17. Choi JA, Lee NY, Park CK. Interpretation of the Humphrey Matrix 24-2 test in the diagnosis of preperimetric glaucoma. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2009;53:24–30
18. Johnson CA, Adams AJ, Casson EJ, et al. Blue-on-yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:645–650
19. Sample PA, Taylor JD, Martinez GA, et al. Short-wavelength color visual fields in glaucoma suspects at risk. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;115:225–233
20. 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
21. Marvasti AH, Tatham AJ, Weinreb RN, et al. Heidelberg edge perimetry for the detection of early glaucomatous damage: a case report. Case Rep Ophthalmol. 2013;4:144–150
22. Anderson DR, Patella VM. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1999
23. Shields MB. Textbook of Glaucoma. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1997
24. Drance SM. The early field defects in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol. 1969;8:84–91
25. Zimmerman TJ, Karanzit KS. Clinical Pathways in Glaucoma. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Pub; 2001
26. Breiman L. Random Forests. Machine Learning. 2001;45:5–32
27. Breiman L, Cutler A. Random Forests. 2004. Available at: http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/cc_ home.htm. Accessed November 5, 2014
28. Diaz-Uriarte R, Alvarez de Andres S. Gene selection and classification of microarray data using random forest. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7:3
29. Palmer DS, O’Boyle NM, Glen RC, et al. Random forest models to predict aqueous solubility. J Chem Inf Model. 2007;47:150–158
30. Wu B, Abbott T, Fishman D, et al. Comparison of statistical methods for classification of ovarian cancer using mass spectrometry data. Bioinformatics. 2003;19:1636–1643
31. Svetnik V, Liaw A, Tong C, et al. Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2003;43:1947–1958
32. Maroco J, Silva D, Rodrigues A, et al. Data mining methods in the prediction of Dementia: a real-data comparison of the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of linear discriminant analysis, logistic regression, neural networks, support vector machines, classification trees and random forests. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:299
33. Douglas PK, Harris S, Yuille A, et al. Performance comparison of machine learning algorithms and number of independent components used in fMRI decoding of belief vs. disbelief. Neuroimage. 2011;56:544–553
34. Asaoka R, Iwase A, Tsutsumi T, et al. Combining multiple HRT parameters using the ‘Random Forests’ method improves the diagnostic accuracy of glaucoma, in emmetropic and highly myopic eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:2482–2490
35. Strobl C, Boulesteix AL, Kneib T, et al. Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008;9: 307
36. Kouris I, Koutsouris D. A comparative study of pattern recognition classifiers to predict physical activities using smartphones and wearable body sensors. Technol Health Care. 2012;20:263–275
37. Heijl A, Bengtsson B. The effect of perimetric experience in patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114:19–22
38. Wild JM, Dengler-Harles M, Searle AE, et al. The influence of the learning effect on automated perimetry in patients with suspected glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1989;67: 537–545
39. Japkowicz N. Evaluating Learning Algorithms: A Classification Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2011
40. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3: 32–35
41. Hardin JW, Hilbe JM. Generalized Linear Models and Extensions. 2nd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press; 2007
42. Harwerth RS, Carter-Dawson L, Shen F, et al. Ganglion cell losses underlying visual field defects from experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:2242–2250
43. Nordmann JP. Early visual disturbances in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1996;7:47–53
44. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J, et al. Visual field interpretation with empiric probability maps. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107: 204–208
45. Nevalainen J, Paetzold J, Papageorgiou E, et al. Specification of progression in glaucomatous visual field loss, applying locally condensed stimulus arrangements. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;247:1659–1669
46. Maddess T. The influence of sampling errors on test-retest variability in perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52: 1014–1022
47. Weber J, Dobek K. What is the most suitable grid for computer perimetry in glaucoma patients? Ophthalmologica. 1986;192: 88–96
48. Aoyama Y, Murata H, Tahara M, et al. A method to measure visual field sensitivity at the edges of glaucomatous scotomata. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:2584–2591
49. Traynis I, De Moraes CG, Raza AS, et al. Prevalence and nature of early glaucomatous defects in the central 10 degrees of the visual field. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132:291–297
50. Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group and the European Glaucoma Prevention Study Group. The accuracy and clinical application of predictive models for primary openangle glaucoma in ocular hypertensive individuals. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:2030–2036.