Reversal of Glaucoma Hemifield Test Results and Visual Field Features in Glaucoma

Ophthalmology

Volumn 125, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 352-360

  Wang, Mengyu ^a   Pasquale, Louis R ^b   Shen, Lucy Q ^b   Boland, Michael V ^c   Wellik, Sarah R ^d   De Moraes, Carlos Gustavo ^e   Myers, Jonathan S ^f   Wang, Hui ^a,g   Baniasadi, Neda ^a   Li, Dian ^a   Silva, Rafaella Nascimento E ^b   Bex, Peter J ^h   Elze, Tobias ^a,i  

^a SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e New York Presbyterian Hospital   (United States)

^f THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g JILIN UNIVERSITY OF FINANCE AND ECONOMICS   (China)

^h NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR MATHEMATICS IN THE SCIENCES   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; EYE DISEASE ASSESSMENT; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; GLAUCOMA; GLAUCOMA HEMIFIELD TEST; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; NORMAL VALUE; PERIMETRY; PREDICTION; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; VISUAL FIELD; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONVALESCENCE; FOLLOW UP; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; TIME FACTOR;

AGED; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MIDDLE AGED; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; TIME FACTORS; VISUAL FIELD TESTS; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 85034986968     PISSN: 01616420     EISSN: 15494713     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.09.021     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Åsman, P., Heijl, A., Glaucoma hemifield test: automated visual field evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol 110 (1992), 812–819.
2. Katz, J., Quigley, H.A., Sommer, A., Detection of incident field loss using the glaucoma henaifield test. Ophthalmology 103 (1996), 657–663.
3. Zalta, A.H., Limitations of the glaucoma hemifield test in identifying early glaucomatous field loss. Ann Ophthalmol 32 (2000), 33–45.
4. Sekhar, G.C., Naduvilath, T.J., Lakkai, M., et al. Sensitivity of swedish interactive threshold algorithm compared with standard full threshold algorithm in humphrey visual field testing. Ophthalmology 107 (2000), 1303–1308.
5. Elze, T., Pasquale, L.R., Shen, L.Q., et al. Patterns of functional vision loss in glaucoma determined with archetypal analysis. J Royal Soc Interface, 12(103), 2015.
6. Leung, C.K.S., Liu, S., Weinreb, R.N., et al. Evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer progression in glaucoma: a prospective analysis with neuroretinal rim and visual field progression. Ophthalmology 118 (2011), 1551–1557.
7. Leung, C.K.S., Yu, M., Weinreb, R.N., et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer imaging with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography: patterns of retinal nerve fiber layer progression. Ophthalmology 119 (2012), 1858–1866.
8. Birt, C.M., Shin, D.H., Samudrala, V., et al. Analysis of reliability indices from Humphrey visual field tests in an urban glaucoma population. Ophthalmology 104 (1997), 1126–1130.
9. Newkirk, M.R., Gardiner, S.K., Demirel, S., et al. Assessment of false positives with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II perimeter with the SITA algorithm. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47 (2006), 4632–4637.
10. Pasquale, L.R., Kang, J.H., Manson, J.E., et al. Prospective study of type 2 diabetes mellitus and risk of primary open-angle glaucoma in women. Ophthalmology 113 (2006), 1081–1086.
11. Pasquale, L.R., Willett, W.C., Rosner, B.A., et al. Anthropometric measures and their relation to incident primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 117 (2010), 1521–1529.
12. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Core Team. http://www.R-project.org; 2015. Accessed September 23, 2016.
13. Nguyen, H.V., Bai, L., Cosine similarity metric learning for face verification. Kimmel, R., Klette, R., Sugimoto, A., (eds.) Asian Conference on Computer Vision, 2010, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 709–720.
14. Steinbach, M., Karypis, G., Kumar, V., et al. A comparison of document clustering techniques. KDD Workshop on Text Mining, Vol 400, 2000, The Association for Computing Machinery's (ACM) Special Interest Group (SIG) on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Boston, 525–526.
15. Keltner, J.L., Johnson, C.A., Cello, K.E., et al. Classification of visual field abnormalities in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Arch Ophthalmol 121 (2003), 643–650.
16. Cai, S., Elze, T., Bex, P.J., et al. Clinical correlates of computationally derived visual field defect archetypes in patients from a glaucoma clinic. Curr Eye Res 42:4 (2017), 568–574.
17. Hosmer, D.W. Jr., Lemeshow, S., Sturdivant, R.X., Applied Logistic Regression, Vol 398, 2013, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
18. Agterberg, F., Bonham-Carter, G., Cheng, Q.M., et al. Weights of evidence modeling and weighted logistic regression for mineral potential mapping. Comput Geol 25 (1993), 13–32.
19. King, G., Zeng, L., Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 9 (2001), 137–163.
20. Jennrich, R.I., Stepwise regression. Statistical Methods for Digital Computers 3 (1977), 58–75.
21. Kohavi R. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In: Mellish CS, ed. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Vol 14. Stanford, CA; 1995:1137-1145.
22. Hanley, J.A., McNeil, B.J., The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143 (1982), 29–36.
23. Efron, B., Gong, G., A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation. Am Statist 37 (1983), 36–48.
24. Efron B. The jackknife, the bootstrap and other resampling plans. Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Philadelphia, PA; 1982.
25. Åsman, P., Heijl, A., Evaluation of methods for automated hemifield analysis in perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 110 (1992), 820–826.
26. Wright, T.M., Goharian, I., Gardiner, S.K., et al. Short-term enhancement of visual field sensitivity in glaucomatous eyes following surgical intraocular pressure reduction. Am J Ophthalmol 159 (2015), 378–385.
27. Waisbourd, M., Ahmed, O.M., Molineaux, J., et al. Reversible structural and functional changes after intraocular pressure reduction in patients with glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 254 (2016), 1159–1166.
28. Caprioli, J., de Leon, J.M., Azarbod, P., et al. Trabeculectomy can improve long-term visual function in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 123 (2016), 117–128.
29. Cohen, S.L., Rosen, A.I., Tan, X., et al. Improvement of the visual field index in clinical glaucoma care. Canadian J Ophthalmol 51 (2016), 445–451.
30. Koucheki, B., Nouri-Mahdavi, K., Patel, G., et al. Visual field changes after cataract extraction: the AGIS experience. Am J Ophthalmol 138 (2004), 1022–1028.
31. Siddiqui, M.R., Khairy, H.A., Azuara-Blanco, A., Effect of cataract extraction on sita perimetry in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 16 (2007), 205–208.
32. Frennesson, C., Nilsson, U.L., Peebo, B.B., et al. Significant improvements in near vision, reading speed, central visual field and related quality of life after ranibizumab treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration. Acta Ophthalmol 88 (2010), 420–425.
33. Squirrell, D.M., Mawer, N.P., Mody, C.H., et al. Visual outcome after intravitreal ranibizumab for wet age-related macular degeneration: a comparison between best-corrected visual acuity and microperimetry. Retina 30 (2010), 436–442.
34. Bengtsson, B., Heijl, A., False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability?. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41 (2000), 2201–2204.
35. He, H., Garcia, E.A., Learning from imbalanced data. IEEE Trans Knowledge Data Eng 21 (2009), 1263–1284.
36. He H, Bai Y, Garcia EA, et al. Adasyn: adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning. In: Neural Networks, 2008. IJCNN 2008. (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence). IEEE Int Joint Conf on IEEE. 2008;1322–1328.
37. Han, H., Wang, W.Y., Mao, B.H., Borderline-smote: a new over-sampling method in imbalanced data sets learning. In: Adasyn: adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning. 2008 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (International Conference on Intelligent Computing). 2005, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 878–887.
38. Maalouf, M., Trafalis, T.B., Robust weighted kernel logistic regression in imbalanced and rare events data. Comput Stat Data Anal 55 (2011), 168–183.