ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2022
Prediction of visual field defects from macular optical coherence tomography in glaucoma using cluster analysis.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multicenter OCT-Based Visual Field Representations via Segmentation-Free 3D CNNs: Forecasting, Longitudinal Variability, and Progression Detection.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Predicting visual field global and local parameters from OCT measurements using explainable machine learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Exploring the relationship between 24-2 visual field and widefield optical coherence tomography data across healthy, glaucoma suspect and glaucoma eyes.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024Article
- Characterisation of the normal human ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer using widefield optical coherence tomography.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024Article
- High sampling resolution optical coherence tomography reveals potential concurrent reductions in ganglion cell-inner plexiform and inner nuclear layer thickness but not in outer retinal thickness in glaucoma.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2023Article
- Author Response: Expected Improvement in Structure-Function Agreement With Macular Displacement Models.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the accuracy of cluster analysis-based models in predicting visual field (VF) defects from macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) measurements in glaucomatous and healthy cohorts.
methodsGCIPL measurements were extracted from posterior pole optical coherence tomography (OCT), from locations corresponding to central VF test grids. Models incorporating cluster analysis methods and corrections for age and fovea to optic disc tilt were developed from 493 healthy participants, and 5th and 1st percentile limits of GCIPL thickness were derived. These limits were compared with pointwise 5th and 1st percentile limits by calculating sensitivities and specificities in an additional 40 normal and 37 glaucomatous participants, as well as applying receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses to assess the accuracy of predicting VF results from co-localised GCIPL measurements.
resultsClustered models demonstrated globally low sensitivity, but high specificity in the glaucoma cohort (0.28-0.53 and 0.77-0.91, respectively), and high specificity in the healthy cohort (0.91-0.98). Clustered models showed similar sensitivities and superior specificities compared with pointwise methods (0.41-0.65 and 0.71-0.98, respectively). There were significant differences in accuracy between clusters, with relatively poor accuracy at peripheral macular locations (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons).
conclusionsCluster analysis-based models incorporating age correction and holistic consideration of fovea to optic disc tilt demonstrated superior performance in predicting VF results to pointwise methods in both glaucomatous and healthy eyes. However, relatively low sensitivity and poorer performance at the peripheral macula indicate that OCT in isolation may be insufficient to predict visual function across the macula accurately. With modifications to criteria for abnormality, the concepts suggested by the described normative models may guide prioritisation of VF assessment requirements, with the potential to limit excessive VF testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.