ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Enhancing central visual field loss representation with a hybrid unsupervised approach.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeTo effectively represent central visual field (VF) loss for individual patients using a hybrid unsupervised approach.
methodsWe obtained 7927 10-2 VF test data from 3328 patients in 5 hospitals. We propose a hybrid approach that combines archetypal analysis (AA) and fuzzy c-means (FCM) to identify characteristic patterns and decompose 10-2 VF without loss. To compare the performance between hybrid approach using FCM and AA single approach, mean deviation (MD) change prediction was performed through supervised learning using decomposition coefficient changes and a linear mixed-effects model was built to investigate the relationship between the MD slope and baseline decomposition coefficients.
resultsWe identified 10 representative archetypes for 10-2 VF test. The hybrid approach using FCM outperformed the AA single approach in predicting MD change, achieving lower mean squared error and higher pearson correlation coefficient (all P ≤ 0.039). According to the linear mixed-effects model, the hybrid approach using FCM provides a better fit for predicting MD slope compared to the AA single approach, as reflected by lower akaike information criterion (AIC) and bayesian information criterion (BIC) scores (AIC decrease: 20.31, BIC decrease: 13.33). Eyes with baseline VFs with more inferior and both hemifield loss and less intact field and nearly total loss were associated with faster central VF progression (all P ≤ 0.026).
conclusionA hybrid approach combining AA and FCM to analyze 10-2 VF can visualize central VF tests in characteristic patterns and enhance prediction of central VF progression with minimized projection loss decomposition compared with AA single approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40719942What 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.