ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Detecting Visual Field Worsening From Optic Nerve Head and Macular Optical Coherence Tomography Thickness Measurements.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. 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.
- Performance of OCT-Based Artificial Intelligence Models for Detecting and Predicting Glaucoma Progression: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparing the Use of Measured and Smoothed Data in Forecasting Visual Field Tests Using Deep Learning.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Comparing the Utility of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer and Ganglion Cell Inner Plexiform Layer OCT Changes to Detect Glaucoma Progression.Ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Compare the use of optic disc and macular optical coherence tomography measurements to predict glaucomatous visual field (VF) worsening. Methods: Machine learning and statistical models were trained on 924 eyes (924 patients) with circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (cp-RNFL) or ganglion cell inner plexiform layer (GC-IPL) thickness measurements. The probability of 24-2 VF worsening was predicted using both trend-based and event-based progression definitions of VF worsening. Additionally, the cp-RNFL and GC-IPL predictions were combined to produce a combined prediction. A held-out test set of 617 eyes was used to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) to compare cp-RNFL, GC-IPL, and combined predictions. Results: The AUCs for cp-RNFL, GC-IPL, and combined predictions with the statistical and machine learning models were 0.72, 0.69, 0.73, and 0.78, 0.75, 0.81, respectively, when using trend-based analysis as ground truth. The differences in performance between the cp-RNFL, GC-IPL, and combined predictions were not statistically significant. AUCs were highest in glaucoma suspects using cp-RNFL predictions and highest in moderate/advanced glaucoma using GC-IPL predictions. The AUCs for the statistical and machine learning models were 0.63, 0.68, 0.69, and 0.72, 0.69, 0.73, respectively, when using event-based analysis. AUCs decreased with increasing disease severity for all predictions. Conclusions: cp-RNFL and GC-IPL similarly predicted VF worsening overall, but cp-RNFL performed best in early glaucoma stages and GC-IPL in later stages. Combining both did not enhance detection significantly. Translational Relevance: cp-RNFL best predicted trend-based 24-2 VF progression in early-stage disease, while GC-IPL best predicted progression in late-stage disease. Combining both features led to minimal improvement in predicting progression.
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.