ArticleOphthalmology science
Efficacy of Smoothing Algorithms to Enhance Detection of Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of Visual Field Progression with Baseline and Longitudinal Structural Measurements Using Deep Learning.American journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Quantifying the spatial patterns of retinal ganglion cell loss and progression in optic neuropathy by applying a deep learning variational autoencoder approach to optical coherence tomography.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of nearest neighbor (NN)- and variational autoencoder (VAE)-smoothing algorithms to reduce variability and enhance the performance of glaucoma visual field (VF) progression models. Design: Longitudinal cohort study. Subjects: 7150 eyes (4232 patients), with ≥ 5 years of follow-up and ≥ 6 visits. Methods: Vsual field thresholds were smoothed with the NN and VAE algorithms. The mean total deviation (mTD) and VF index rates, pointwise linear regression (PLR), permutation of PLR (PoPLR), and the glaucoma rate index were applied to the unsmoothed and smoothed data. Main Outcome Measures: The proportion of progressing eyes and the conversion to progression were compared between the smoothed and unsmoothed data. A simulation series of noiseless VFs with various patterns of glaucoma damage was used to evaluate the specificity of the smoothing models. Results: The mean values of age and follow-up time were 62.8 (standard deviation: 12.6) years and 10.4 (standard deviation: 4.7) years, respectively. The proportion of progression was significantly higher for the NN and VAE smoothed data compared with the unsmoothed data. VF progression occurred significantly earlier with both smoothed data compared with unsmoothed data based on mTD rates, PLR, and PoPLR methods. The ability to detect the progressing eyes was similar for the unsmoothed and smoothed data in the simulation data. Conclusions: Smoothing VF data with NN and VAE algorithms improves the signal-to-noise ratio for detection of change, results in earlier detection of VF progression, and could help monitor glaucoma progression more effectively in the clinical setting. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.