ArticleScientific reports2025
Forecasting mean deviation in glaucoma patients using an irregular autoregressive time series method.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate forecasting of disease progression is vital in glaucoma management. Ordinary least square regression (OLSR) analyses are not appropriate to perform trend analysis on longitudinally collected perimetry data. This study examines the applicability of an irregular autoregressive of order 1 (IAR (1)) method to model mean deviation (MD) series and investigates if IAR (1) improves validity of the model and results better forecasts then OLSR. Longitudinal data from eyes with progressive glaucoma were used. A total of 1200 MD data from forty-two eyes were included in this study. MD series from the eyes were fitted using both OLSR and an IAR (1) methods. A correlogram was used to determine if errors of the fitted OLSR and IAR (1) were correlated. Predictability of the IAR (1) method was then compared with OLSR using forecast Mean Square Error (MSE). Residuals from the OLSR were correlated and did not satisfy the assumption of normality. On the other hand, the IAR (1) model markedly improved the validity of the model as evidenced by insignificant autocorrelation functions (p-value > 0.05) and model's ability to fit heavy-tailed distribution. Compared to the OLSR fit, significantly higher percentages of eyes resulted smaller MSE (62% vs. 38%, P = 0.02) when fitted with IAR (1) method. The IAR (1) method adequately addresses the shortcomings of OLSR when fitting repeatedly collected perimetry data. The IAR (1) method appears to be statistically more valid method for fitting MD series and more accurately forecasts MD progression when compared with OLSR fit.
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.