ArticleOphthalmology. Glaucoma
Opportunities for Improving Glaucoma Clinical Trials via Deep Learning-Based Identification of Patients with Low Visual Field Variability.
Article in Ophthalmology. Glaucoma. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology: Practical Applications, Subspecialty Evidence and Real-World Deployment.Cureus · 2025Review
- Big data in visual field testing for glaucoma.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDevelop and evaluate the performance of a deep learning model (DLM) that forecasts eyes with low future visual field (VF) variability, and study the impact of using this DLM on sample size requirements for neuroprotective trials.
designRetrospective cohort and simulation study.
methodsWe included 1 eye per patient with baseline reliable VFs, OCT, clinical measures (demographics, intraocular pressure, and visual acuity), and 5 subsequent reliable VFs to forecast VF variability using DLMs and perform sample size estimates. We estimated sample size for 3 groups of eyes: all eyes (AE), low variability eyes (LVE: the subset of AE with a standard deviation of mean deviation [MD] slope residuals in the bottom 25th percentile), and DLM-predicted low variability eyes (DLPE: the subset of AE predicted to be low variability by the DLM). Deep learning models using only baseline VF/OCT/clinical data as input (DLM1), or also using a second VF (DLM2) were constructed to predict low VF variability (DLPE1 and DLPE2, respectively). Data were split 60/10/30 into train/val/test. Clinical trial simulations were performed only on the test set. We estimated the sample size necessary to detect treatment effects of 20% to 50% in MD slope with 80% power. Power was defined as the percentage of simulated clinical trials where the MD slope was significantly worse from the control. Clinical trials were simulated with visits every 3 months with a total of 10 visits.
resultsA total of 2817 eyes were included in the analysis. Deep learning models 1 and 2 achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68, 0.76) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.85) in forecasting low VF variability. When compared with including AE, using DLPE1 and DLPE2 reduced sample size to achieve 80% power by 30% and 38% for 30% treatment effect, and 31% and 38% for 50% treatment effect.
conclusionsDeep learning models can forecast eyes with low VF variability using data from a single baseline clinical visit. This can reduce sample size requirements, and potentially reduce the burden of future glaucoma clinical trials. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): 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.