ArticlePLOS digital health2023
Archetypal analysis of longitudinal visual fields for idiopathic intracranial hypertension patients presenting in a clinic setting.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Connecting Visual Perception With Proton Therapy-Induced Optic Damage Using Archetypal Analysis.International journal of particle therapy · 2025Article
- Archetypal Analysis Reveals Consistent Visual Field Patterns for Stimulus Size III and Size Modulation Perimetry in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Interpretation of the Visual Field in Neuro-ophthalmic Disorders.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We previously applied archetypal analysis (AA) using visual fields (VF) from the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Treatment Trial (IIHTT) to derive a model, which quantified patterns (or archetypes [ATs] of VF loss), anticipated recovery, and identified residual VF deficits. We hypothesized that AA could produce similar results using IIH VFs collected in clinical practice. We applied AA to 803 VFs from 235 eyes with IIH from an outpatient neuro-ophthalmology clinic and created a clinic-derived model of ATs, with the relative weight (RW) and average total deviation (TD) for each AT. We also created a combined-derived model from an input dataset containing the clinic VFs and 2862 VFs from the IIHTT. We used both models to decompose clinic VF into ATs of varying percent weight (PW), correlated presentation AT PW with mean deviation (MD), and evaluated final visit VFs considered "normal" by MD ≥ -2.00 dB for residual abnormal ATs. The 14-AT clinic-derived and combined-derived models revealed similar patterns of VF loss previously identified in the IIHTT model. AT1 (a normal pattern) was most prevalent in both models (RW = 51.8% for clinic-derived; 35.4% for combined-derived). Presentation AT1 PW correlated with final visit MD (r = 0.82, p < 0.001 for the clinic-derived model; r = 0.59, p < 0.001 for the combined-derived model). Both models showed ATs with similar patterns of regional VF loss. The most common patterns of VF loss in "normal" final visit VFs using each model were clinic-derived AT2 (mild global depression with enlarged blind spot; 44/125 VFs; 34%) and combined-derived AT2 (near-normal; 93/149 VFs; 62%). AA provides quantitative values for IIH-related patterns of VF loss that can be used to monitor VF changes in a clinic setting. Presentation AT1 PW is associated with the degree of VF recovery. AA identifies residual VF deficits not otherwise indicated by MD.
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.