Literature DB >> 24704136

Using filtered forecasting techniques to determine personalized monitoring schedules for patients with open-angle glaucoma.

Greggory J Schell1, Mariel S Lavieri1, Jonathan E Helm2, Xiang Liu1, David C Musch3, Mark P Van Oyen1, Joshua D Stein4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether dynamic and personalized schedules of visual field (VF) testing and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements result in an improvement in disease progression detection compared with fixed interval schedules for performing these tests when evaluating patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG).
DESIGN: Secondary analyses using longitudinal data from 2 randomized controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 571 participants from the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS) and the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS).
METHODS: Perimetric and tonometric data were obtained for AGIS and CIGTS trial participants and used to parameterize and validate a Kalman filter model. The Kalman filter updates knowledge about each participant's disease dynamics as additional VF tests and IOP measurements are obtained. After incorporating the most recent VF and IOP measurements, the model forecasts each participant's disease dynamics into the future and characterizes the forecasting error. To determine personalized schedules for future VF tests and IOP measurements, we developed an algorithm by combining the Kalman filter for state estimation with the predictive power of logistic regression to identify OAG progression. The algorithm was compared with 1-, 1.5-, and 2-year fixed interval schedules of obtaining VF and IOP measurements. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of diagnostic delay in detecting OAG progression, efficiency of detecting progression, and number of VF and IOP measurements needed to assess for progression.
RESULTS: Participants were followed in the AGIS and CIGTS trials for a mean (standard deviation) of 6.5 (2.8) years. Our forecasting model achieved a 29% increased efficiency in identifying OAG progression (P<0.0001) and detected OAG progression 57% sooner (reduced diagnostic delay) (P = 0.02) than following a fixed yearly monitoring schedule, without increasing the number of VF tests and IOP measurements required. The model performed well for patients with mild and advanced disease. The model performed significantly more testing of patients who exhibited OAG progression than nonprogressing patients (1.3 vs. 1.0 tests per year; P<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Use of dynamic and personalized testing schedules can enhance the efficiency of OAG progression detection and reduce diagnostic delay compared with yearly fixed monitoring intervals. If further validation studies confirm these findings, such algorithms may be able to greatly enhance OAG management.
Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24704136      PMCID: PMC4495761          DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.02.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  9 in total

1.  The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients.

Authors:  D C Musch; P R Lichter; K E Guire; C L Standardi
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 12.079

2.  A dual-rate Kalman filter for continuous glucose monitoring.

Authors:  Matthew Kuure-Kinsey; Cesar C Palerm; B Wayne Bequette
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2006

3.  Statistical modeling of cardiovascular signals and parameter estimation based on the extended Kalman filter.

Authors:  James McNames; Mateo Aboy
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.538

4.  Patterns of care for open-angle glaucoma in managed care.

Authors:  Allen M Fremont; Paul P Lee; Carol M Mangione; Kanika Kapur; John L Adams; Steven L Wickstrom; José J Escarce
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-06

5.  The probability of glaucoma from ocular hypertension determined by ophthalmologists in comparison to a risk calculator.

Authors:  Steven L Mansberger; George A Cioffi
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study.

Authors:  Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi; Douglas Hoffman; Anne L Coleman; Gang Liu; Gang Li; Douglas Gaasterland; Joseph Caprioli
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 12.079

Review 7.  Diagnostic tools for calculation of glaucoma risk.

Authors:  Steve L Mansberger; Felipe A Medeiros; Mae Gordon
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 6.048

8.  Visual field progression in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study the impact of treatment and other baseline factors.

Authors:  David C Musch; Brenda W Gillespie; Paul R Lichter; Leslie M Niziol; Nancy K Janz
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2008-11-18       Impact factor: 12.079

9.  The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 1. Study design and methods and baseline characteristics of study patients.

Authors:  F Ederer; D E Gaasterland; E K Sullivan
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1994-08
  9 in total
  9 in total

1.  Dynamic Monitoring and Control of Irreversible Chronic Diseases with Application to Glaucoma.

Authors:  Pooyan Kazemian; Jonathan E Helm; Mariel S Lavieri; Joshua D Stein; Mark P Van Oyen
Journal:  Prod Oper Manag       Date:  2018-11-16       Impact factor: 4.965

Review 2.  Functional assessment of glaucoma: Uncovering progression.

Authors:  Rongrong Hu; Lyne Racette; Kelly S Chen; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-04-26       Impact factor: 6.048

3.  Using Kalman Filtering to Forecast Disease Trajectory for Patients With Normal Tension Glaucoma.

Authors:  Gian-Gabriel P Garcia; Koji Nitta; Mariel S Lavieri; Chris Andrews; Xiang Liu; Elizabeth Lobaza; Mark P Van Oyen; Kazuhisa Sugiyama; Joshua D Stein
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 5.258

4.  Spectral analysis of intraocular pressure pulse wave in ocular hypertensive and primary open angle glaucoma patients.

Authors:  Marija M Bozic; Miroslav L Dukic; Milenko Z Stojkovic
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.848

5.  Forecasting future Humphrey Visual Fields using deep learning.

Authors:  Joanne C Wen; Cecilia S Lee; Pearse A Keane; Sa Xiao; Ariel S Rokem; Philip P Chen; Yue Wu; Aaron Y Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-05       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Current and Future Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence in Glaucoma Care.

Authors:  Abhimanyu S Ahuja; Sarvika Bommakanti; Isabella Wagner; Syril Dorairaj; Richard D Ten Hulzen; Leticia Checo
Journal:  J Curr Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-07-26

7.  Augmenting Kalman Filter Machine Learning Models with Data from OCT to Predict Future Visual Field Loss: An Analysis Using Data from the African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study and the Diagnostic Innovation in Glaucoma Study.

Authors:  Mohammad Zhalechian; Mark P Van Oyen; Mariel S Lavieri; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Christopher A Girkin; Massimo A Fazio; Robert N Weinreb; Christopher Bowd; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Linda M Zangwill; Christopher A Andrews; Joshua D Stein
Journal:  Ophthalmol Sci       Date:  2021-12-21

8.  Impact of Systemic Comorbidities on Ocular Hypertension and Open-Angle Glaucoma, in a Population from Spain and Portugal.

Authors:  Carolina Garcia-Villanueva; Elena Milla; José M Bolarin; José J García-Medina; Javier Cruz-Espinosa; Javier Benítez-Del-Castillo; José Salgado-Borges; Francisco J Hernández-Martínez; Elena Bendala-Tufanisco; Irene Andrés-Blasco; Alex Gallego-Martinez; Vicente C Zanón-Moreno; María Dolores Pinazo-Durán
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-09-25       Impact factor: 4.964

Review 9.  Glaucoma history and risk factors.

Authors:  Charles W McMonnies
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2016-03-23
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.