Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33359887›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology2021

Assessing Glaucoma Progression Using Machine Learning Trained on Longitudinal Visual Field and Clinical Data.

Avyuk Dixit, Jithin Yohannan, Michael V Boland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Avyuk DixitUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Jithin YohannanWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Michael V BolandDepartment of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: Michael_Boland@meei.harvard.edu.

Funding

Wilmer Core Grant for Vision ResearchP30EY001765 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Jiang Qian · 1985 to 2026
$22.1M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY001765
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRule-based approaches to determining glaucoma progression from visual fields (VFs) alone are discordant and have tradeoffs. To detect better when glaucoma progression is occurring, we used a longitudinal data set of merged VF and clinical data to assess the performance of a convolutional long short-term memory (LSTM) neural network.

designRetrospective analysis of longitudinal clinical and VF data.

participantsFrom 2 initial datasets of 672 123 VF results from 213 254 eyes and 350 437 samples of clinical data, persons at the intersection of both datasets with 4 or more VF results and corresponding baseline clinical data (cup-to-disc ratio, central corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure) were included. After exclusion criteria-specifically the removal of VFs with high false-positive and false-negative rates and entries with missing data-were applied to ensure reliable data, 11 242 eyes remained.

methodsThree commonly used glaucoma progression algorithms (VF index slope, mean deviation slope, and pointwise linear regression) were used to define eyes as stable or progressing. Two machine learning models, one exclusively trained on VF data and another trained on both VF and clinical data, were tested.

main outcome measuresArea under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) calculated on a held-out test set and mean accuracies from threefold cross-validation were used to compare the performance of the machine learning models.

resultsThe convolutional LSTM network demonstrated 91% to 93% accuracy with respect to the different conventional glaucoma progression algorithms given 4 consecutive VF results for each participant. The model that was trained on both VF and clinical data (AUC, 0.89-0.93) showed better diagnostic ability than a model exclusively trained on VF results (AUC, 0.79-0.82; P < 0.001).

conclusionsA convolutional LSTM architecture can capture local and global trends in VFs over time. It is well suited to assessing glaucoma progression because of its ability to extract spatiotemporal features that other algorithms cannot. Supplementing VF results with clinical data improves the model's ability to assess glaucoma progression and better reflects the way clinicians manage data when managing glaucoma.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine LearningAgedClinical CompetenceDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlaucomaGlaucoma, Open-AngleHumansIntraocular PressureMaleOphthalmologistsRetrospective StudiesROC CurveVisual FieldsArtificial intelligenceClinical dataGlaucomaMachine learningProgressionRNNVisual field

Identifiers

PMID33359887
PMCPMC8222148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.