| Literature DB >> 34878500 |
Damon Wong1,2,3, Jacqueline Chua3,4, Bingyao Tan1,2,3, Xinwen Yao1,2,3, Rachel Chong3, Chelvin C A Sng3,5, Rahat Husain3, Tin Aung3,4,5,5, David Garway-Heath6,7, Leopold Schmetterer1,2,3,5,8,9,10.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate modeling of the focal visual field (VF) loss by combining structural measurements and vascular measurements in eyes with early primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34878500 PMCID: PMC8662568 DOI: 10.1167/iovs.62.15.8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci ISSN: 0146-0404 Impact factor: 4.799
Figure 1.Illustration of the focal structure–function map. (A) OCTA image of the superficial capillary plexus of a study eye. (B) Binarized capillaries with major vessels removed overlaid with nerve fiber trajectories indicated in green, with numbers indicating the angular coordinates based on the modified polar coordinate system developed by Jansonius and co-workers., The red circle represents the scan pattern for the circumpapillary RNFL thickness measurement. The fiber trajectories are used to define the regions on the OCTA image for calculation of the focal CPD and arcs along the RNFL scan pattern for calculation of focal nerve fiber layer thickness. Further details on the implementation can be found in our previous publication. (C) Mapping of the VF locations and associated trajectories. Values indicate the mean and 95% confidence intervals of the angular coordinates for each VF location.
Demographic Characteristics of Study Subjects (97 Eyes, 71 Subjects)
| Characteristics | Value |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y), mean ± SD | 63.5 ± 12.7 | 0.586 | 0.187 |
| Gender (female:male), | 23:48 | 0.210 | 0.182 |
| Refractive error (D), mean ± SD | −1.3 ± 2.0 | 0.810 | 0.144 |
| Intraocular pressure (mmHg), mean ± SD | 14.5 ± 2.8 | 0.420 | 0.193 |
| Global RNFL thickness (µm), mean ± SD | 75.3 ± 9.3 |
|
|
| Global capillary density (%), mean ± SD | 36.6 ± 7.2 |
|
|
| Disc–fovea angle (°), | 9.4 ± 3.7 | 0.843 | 0.178 |
| Disc–fovea distance (mm), | 4.5 ± 0.2 | 0.924 | 0.183 |
| Signal strength, mean ± SD | 8.5 ± 0.9 | 0.824 | 0.179 |
| VF mean deviation (dB), mean ± SD | −2.5 ± 1.6 | — | — |
Adjusted R values are based on univariate linear mixed-effects modeling with VFMD. Characteristics with significant coefficients (P < .05) are in bold.
Angle between the optic disc center and the foveola, with respect to the horizontal.
Distance between the optic disc center and the foveola.
Summary of Likelihood Ratio Test Results at Each Focal Location Comparing the Combined RNFL–CPD Model Against the Nested RNFL or CPD Model
| Likelihood Ratio Test | ||
|---|---|---|
| Model |
|
|
| Focal retinal nerve fiber thickness | 18 (35.2%) | 13 (25.4%) |
| Focal capillary density | 12 (23.5%) | 9 (17.6%) |
Summary of likelihood ratio tests comparing the combined RNFL–CPD model against the nested unimodal model. NLR indicates the number of VF locations in which the combined model was significantly (P < .05) better; NLR,BF indicates the number of significant locations that were better after correcting with Holm–Bonferroni. Values in parentheses for NLR and NLR,HB represent the number of VF test locations as a percentage of all test locations (51).
Regression analysis was performed at each VF test location using focal RNFL, focal CPD, and a combined model with both focal RNFL and CPD. One VF test location at eccentricity (9°, −3°) was excluded due to the limited region of the focal nerve layer and CPD defined by the trajectories for that location.
Figure 2.Distributions of the performance of the different approaches used to model focal VF loss from all VF test points. R2 values were adjusted for the number of predictors in the model. Values in the legends indicate the median, with square brackets indicating the 25% and 75% quantiles for the corresponding model. Labels on the x-axis indicate the lower bounds of the histogram bins.
Figure 3.Spatial distributions of the results obtained from the focal structure–function models. The top row presents model performance in terms of adjusted R2 values with respect to the individual focal VF locations for the (A) RNFL-only approach, (B) CPD-only approach, and (C) combined RNFL–CPD approach. The second row presents the results of the likelihood ratio tests comparing the combined RNFL–CPD model against the univariate (D) RNFL-only or (E) CPD-only models at individual VF locations. Holm–Bonferroni corrections were performed to adjust significance levels for multiple comparisons.