Jonathan Denniss1, Allison M McKendrick, Andrew Turpin. 1. Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia ; Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the performance of patient-specific prior information, for example, from structural imaging, in improving perimetric procedures. METHODS: Computer simulation was used to determine the error distribution and presentation count for Structure-Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing (ZEST), a Bayesian procedure with prior distribution centered on a threshold prediction from structure. Structure-ZEST (SZEST) was trialled for single locations with combinations of true and predicted thresholds between 1 to 35 dB, and compared with a standard procedure with variability similar to Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) (Full-Threshold, FT). Clinical tests of glaucomatous visual fields (n = 163, median mean deviation -1.8 dB, 90% range +2.1 to -22.6 dB) were also compared between techniques. RESULTS: For single locations, SZEST typically outperformed FT when structural predictions were within ± 9 dB of true sensitivity, depending on response errors. In damaged locations, mean absolute error was 0.5 to 1.8 dB lower, SD of threshold estimates was 1.2 to 1.5 dB lower, and 2 to 4 (29%-41%) fewer presentations were made for SZEST. Gains were smaller across whole visual fields (SZEST, mean absolute error: 0.5 to 1.2 dB lower, threshold estimate SD: 0.3 to 0.8 dB lower, 1 [17%] fewer presentation). The 90% retest limits of SZEST were median 1 to 3 dB narrower and more consistent (interquartile range 2-8 dB narrower) across the dynamic range than those for FT. CONCLUSION: Seeding Bayesian perimetric procedures with structural measurements can reduce test variability of perimetry in glaucoma, despite imprecise structural predictions of threshold. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Structural data can reduce the variability of current perimetric techniques. A strong structure-function relationship is not necessary, however, structure must predict function within ±9 dB for gains to be realized.
PURPOSE: To explore the performance of patient-specific prior information, for example, from structural imaging, in improving perimetric procedures. METHODS: Computer simulation was used to determine the error distribution and presentation count for Structure-Zippy Estimation by Sequential Testing (ZEST), a Bayesian procedure with prior distribution centered on a threshold prediction from structure. Structure-ZEST (SZEST) was trialled for single locations with combinations of true and predicted thresholds between 1 to 35 dB, and compared with a standard procedure with variability similar to Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) (Full-Threshold, FT). Clinical tests of glaucomatous visual fields (n = 163, median mean deviation -1.8 dB, 90% range +2.1 to -22.6 dB) were also compared between techniques. RESULTS: For single locations, SZEST typically outperformed FT when structural predictions were within ± 9 dB of true sensitivity, depending on response errors. In damaged locations, mean absolute error was 0.5 to 1.8 dB lower, SD of threshold estimates was 1.2 to 1.5 dB lower, and 2 to 4 (29%-41%) fewer presentations were made for SZEST. Gains were smaller across whole visual fields (SZEST, mean absolute error: 0.5 to 1.2 dB lower, threshold estimate SD: 0.3 to 0.8 dB lower, 1 [17%] fewer presentation). The 90% retest limits of SZEST were median 1 to 3 dB narrower and more consistent (interquartile range 2-8 dB narrower) across the dynamic range than those for FT. CONCLUSION: Seeding Bayesian perimetric procedures with structural measurements can reduce test variability of perimetry in glaucoma, despite imprecise structural predictions of threshold. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Structural data can reduce the variability of current perimetric techniques. A strong structure-function relationship is not necessary, however, structure must predict function within ±9 dB for gains to be realized.
Entities:
Keywords:
automated perimetry; perimetry; static perimetry; structure–function; visual field
Authors: Jonathan Denniss; Ingo Schiessl; Vincent Nourrit; Cecilia H Fenerty; Ramesh Gautam; David B Henson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Haogang Zhu; David P Crabb; Patricio G Schlottmann; Hans G Lemij; Nicolaas J Reus; Paul R Healey; Paul Mitchell; Tuan Ho; David F Garway-Heath Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: N M Jansonius; J Nevalainen; B Selig; L M Zangwill; P A Sample; W M Budde; J B Jonas; W A Lagrèze; P J Airaksinen; R Vonthein; L A Levin; J Paetzold; U Schiefer Journal: Vision Res Date: 2009-06-16 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Yuka Kihara; Giovanni Montesano; Andrew Chen; Nishani Amerasinghe; Chrysostomos Dimitriou; Aby Jacob; Almira Chabi; David P Crabb; Aaron Y Lee Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 14.277
Authors: Giovanni Montesano; Luca M Rossetti; Davide Allegrini; Mario R Romano; David P Crabb Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-12-28 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Jack Phu; Sieu K Khuu; Michael Yapp; Nagi Assaad; Michael P Hennessy; Michael Kalloniatis Journal: Clin Exp Optom Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 2.742