Richard G Weleber1, Travis B Smith1, Dawn Peters2, Elvira N Chegarnov1, Scott P Gillespie3, Peter J Francis4, Stuart K Gardiner5, Jens Paetzold6, Janko Dietzsch6, Ulrich Schiefer7, Chris A Johnson8. 1. Casey Eye Institute Oregon Retinal Degeneration Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 2. Casey Eye Institute Oregon Retinal Degeneration Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA ; Department of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Division of Biostatistics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 3. Applied Brain, Inc., Portland, OR, USA. 4. Pacific Ophthalmology Consulting, Portland, OR, USA. 5. Devers Eye Institute, Legacy Research Institute, Portland, OR, USA. 6. Centre for Ophthalmology/Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 7. Centre for Ophthalmology/Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany ; Competence Centre "Vision Research", University of Applied Sciences, Aalen, Germany. 8. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and the Institute for Vision Research, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze static visual field sensitivity with topographic models of the hill of vision (HOV), and to characterize several visual function indices derived from the HOV volume. METHODS: A software application, Visual Field Modeling and Analysis (VFMA), was developed for static perimetry data visualization and analysis. Three-dimensional HOV models were generated for 16 healthy subjects and 82 retinitis pigmentosa patients. Volumetric visual function indices, which are measures of quantity and comparable regardless of perimeter test pattern, were investigated. Cross-validation, reliability, and cross-sectional analyses were performed to assess this methodology and compare the volumetric indices to conventional mean sensitivity and mean deviation. Floor effects were evaluated by computer simulation. RESULTS: Cross-validation yielded an overall R2 of 0.68 and index of agreement of 0.89, which were consistent among subject groups, indicating good accuracy. Volumetric and conventional indices were comparable in terms of test-retest variability and discriminability among subject groups. Simulated floor effects did not negatively impact the repeatability of any index, but large floor changes altered the discriminability for regional volumetric indices. CONCLUSIONS: VFMA is an effective tool for clinical and research analyses of static perimetry data. Topographic models of the HOV aid the visualization of field defects, and topographically derived indices quantify the magnitude and extent of visual field sensitivity. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: VFMA assists with the interpretation of visual field data from any perimetric device and any test location pattern. Topographic models and volumetric indices are suitable for diagnosis, monitoring of field loss, patient counseling, and endpoints in therapeutic trials.
PURPOSE: To analyze static visual field sensitivity with topographic models of the hill of vision (HOV), and to characterize several visual function indices derived from the HOV volume. METHODS: A software application, Visual Field Modeling and Analysis (VFMA), was developed for static perimetry data visualization and analysis. Three-dimensional HOV models were generated for 16 healthy subjects and 82 retinitis pigmentosa patients. Volumetric visual function indices, which are measures of quantity and comparable regardless of perimeter test pattern, were investigated. Cross-validation, reliability, and cross-sectional analyses were performed to assess this methodology and compare the volumetric indices to conventional mean sensitivity and mean deviation. Floor effects were evaluated by computer simulation. RESULTS: Cross-validation yielded an overall R2 of 0.68 and index of agreement of 0.89, which were consistent among subject groups, indicating good accuracy. Volumetric and conventional indices were comparable in terms of test-retest variability and discriminability among subject groups. Simulated floor effects did not negatively impact the repeatability of any index, but large floor changes altered the discriminability for regional volumetric indices. CONCLUSIONS: VFMA is an effective tool for clinical and research analyses of static perimetry data. Topographic models of the HOV aid the visualization of field defects, and topographically derived indices quantify the magnitude and extent of visual field sensitivity. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: VFMA assists with the interpretation of visual field data from any perimetric device and any test location pattern. Topographic models and volumetric indices are suitable for diagnosis, monitoring of field loss, patient counseling, and endpoints in therapeutic trials.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical trial endpoints; retinitis pigmentosa; standard automated perimetry; visual fields; volumetric measures of the hill of vision
Authors: S G Jacobson; A V Cideciyan; A Iannaccone; R G Weleber; G A Fishman; A M Maguire; L M Affatigato; J Bennett; E A Pierce; M Danciger; D B Farber; E M Stone Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Samuel G Jacobson; Alejandro J Roman; Tomas S Aleman; Alexander Sumaroka; Waldo Herrera; Elizabeth A M Windsor; Lori A Atkinson; Sharon B Schwartz; Janet D Steinberg; Artur V Cideciyan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Maximilian Pfau; Moritz Lindner; Martin Gliem; Julia S Steinberg; Sarah Thiele; Robert P Finger; Monika Fleckenstein; Frank G Holz; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Erin A Boese; Nieraj Jain; Yali Jia; Catie L Schlechter; Cary O Harding; Simon S Gao; Rachel C Patel; David Huang; Richard G Weleber; Melanie B Gillingham; Mark E Pennesi Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Catherine M Lockhart; Travis B Smith; Paul Yang; Malini Naidu; Allan E Rettie; Abhinav Nath; Richard Weleber; Edward J Kelly Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: David G Birch; Paul S Bernstein; Alessandro Iannacone; Mark E Pennesi; Byron L Lam; John Heckenlively; Karl Csaky; Mary Elizabeth Hartnett; Kevin L Winthrop; Thiran Jayasundera; Dianna K Hughbanks-Wheaton; Judith Warner; Paul Yang; Gary Edd Fish; Michael P Teske; Neal L Sklaver; Laura Erker; Elvira Chegarnov; Travis Smith; Aimee Wahle; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Jennifer McCormack; Robert Lindblad; Steven Bramer; Stephen Rose; Patricia Zilliox; Peter J Francis; Richard G Weleber Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Maria A Parker; Laura R Erker; Isabelle Audo; Dongseok Choi; Saddek Mohand-Said; Kastytis Sestakauskas; Patrick Benoit; Terence Appelqvist; Melissa Krahmer; Caroline Ségaut-Prévost; Brandon J Lujan; Ambar Faridi; Elvira N Chegarnov; Peter N Steinkamp; Cristy Ku; Mariana Matioli da Palma; Pierre-Olivier Barale; Sarah Ayelo-Scheer; Andreas Lauer; Tim Stout; David J Wilson; Richard G Weleber; Mark E Pennesi; José Alain Sahel; Paul Yang Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 5.488
Authors: Jacque L Duncan; Wendi Liang; Maureen G Maguire; Isabelle Audo; Allison R Ayala; David G Birch; Joseph Carroll; Janet K Cheetham; Simona Degli Esposti; Todd A Durham; Laura Erker; Sina Farsiu; Frederick L Ferris; Elise Heon; Robert B Hufnagel; Alessandro Iannaccone; Glenn J Jaffe; Christine N Kay; Michel Michaelides; Mark E Pennesi; José-Alain Sahel Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 5.488
Authors: Maria A Parker; Dongseok Choi; Laura R Erker; Mark E Pennesi; Paul Yang; Elvira N Chegarnov; Peter N Steinkamp; Catherine L Schlechter; Claire-Marie Dhaenens; Saddek Mohand-Said; Isabelle Audo; Jose Sahel; Richard G Weleber; David J Wilson Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Neruban Kumaran; Gary S Rubin; Angelos Kalitzeos; Kaoru Fujinami; James W B Bainbridge; Richard G Weleber; Michel Michaelides Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Amandeep Singh Josan; Thomas M W Buckley; Laura J Wood; Jasleen K Jolly; Jasmina Cehajic-Kapetanovic; Robert E MacLaren Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Travis B Smith; Maria Parker; Peter N Steinkamp; Richard G Weleber; Ning Smith; David J Wilson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240