ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Accurate Prediction of Humphrey 10-2 Visual Fields in Glaucoma from a Single Rapid IMOvifa 24plus(1-2).
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Predicting the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 10-2 visual field (VF) using machine learning (ML) based on IMOvifa 24plus(1-2) VF data. Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Participants: Seventy actual IMOvifa 24plus(1-2) tests from 25 patients (The Jikei University School of Medicine) and 3472 synthesized IMOvifa 24plus(1-2) tests from 884 patients who underwent HFA 24-2 and HFA 10-2 VF measurements at 4 affiliated hospitals. Methods: Synthesized 24plus(1-2) data were created by merging 54 points from HFA 24-2 and 24 points from HFA 10-2 tests. An XGBoost model, trained on the synthetic data set, predicted thresholds at the 68 HFA 10-2 test locations. Model performance was assessed on the actual data set using leave-one-out cross-validation. Stratified patient-level bootstrap analyses accounting for multiple tests per patient were used to compare results across 3 glaucoma severity groups (mild, moderate, and advanced) based on HFA 10-2 mean deviation. Four models utilizing different input subsets were evaluated: model 1 (all 78 IMOvifa 24plus[1-2] points), model 2 (54 points of 24-2), model 3 (central 40 points of 24plus[1-2]), and model 4 (central 16 points of 24-2). Test durations were also compared. Main Outcome Measures: Mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and coefficient of determination (R Results: Model 1 (all 24plus[1-2] points) achieved the highest overall accuracy (MAE 3.59 dB, RMSE 5.71 dB, R Conclusions: Incorporating the additional central test points from the IMOvifa 24plus(1-2) significantly enhances the accuracy of ML based HFA 10-2 VF prediction. This approach offers an efficient strategy for obtaining detailed central VF information from a single, rapid test, potentially improving glaucoma management. 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.