Robust and censored modeling and prediction of progression in glaucomatous visual fields.

PURPOSE Classic regression is based on certain assumptions that conflict with visual field (VF) data. We investigate and evaluate different regression models and their assumptions in order to determine point-wise VF progression in glaucoma and to better predict future field loss for personalised clinical glaucoma management. METHODS Standard automated visual fields of 130 patients with primary glaucoma with a minimum of 6 years of follow-up were included. Sensitivity estimates at each VF location were regressed on time with classical linear and exponential regression models, as well as different variants of these models that take into account censoring and allow for robust fits. These models were compared for the best fit and for their predictive ability. The prediction was evaluated at six measurements (approximately 3 years) ahead using varying numbers of measurements. RESULTS For fitting the data, the classical uncensored linear regression model had the lowest root mean square error and 95th percentile of the absolute errors. These errors were reduced in all models when increasing the number of measurements used for the prediction of future measurements, with the classical uncensored linear regression model having the lowest values for these errors irrespective of how many measurements were included. CONCLUSIONS All models performed similarly. Despite violation of its assumptions, the classical uncensored linear regression model appeared to provide the best fit for our data. In addition, this model appeared to perform the best when predicting future VFs. However, more advanced regression models exploring any temporal-spatial relationships of glaucomatous progression are needed to reduce prediction errors to clinically meaningful levels.

[1]  J. Tobin Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables , 1958 .

[2]  Nomdo M. Jansonius,et al.  Persistence, Spatial Distribution and Implications for Progression Detection of Blind Parts of the Visual Field in Glaucoma: A Clinical Cohort Study , 2012, PloS one.

[3]  Jonathan Denniss,et al.  An anatomically customizable computational model relating the visual field to the optic nerve head in individual eyes. , 2012, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[4]  J. Flammer,et al.  Glaucoma: A Guide for Patients, an Introduction for Care-Providers, a Quick Reference , 2002 .

[5]  M. Nicolela,et al.  Properties of the statpac visual field index. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  Abd Mutalib,et al.  IDENTIFICATION OF OUTLIERS: A SIMULATION STUDY , 2015 .

[7]  Parham Azarbod,et al.  Validation of point-wise exponential regression to measure the decay rates of glaucomatous visual fields. , 2012, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[8]  N. Draper,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis. , 1967 .

[9]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data , 2001 .

[10]  Douglas M. Hawkins Identification of Outliers , 1980, Monographs on Applied Probability and Statistics.

[11]  Barry B. Lee,et al.  Responses of primate retinal ganglion cells to perimetric stimuli. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[12]  Richard A. Russell,et al.  The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large-scale longitudinal visual field data. , 2012, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[13]  M. Gordijn,et al.  Factors that influence standard automated perimetry test results in glaucoma: test reliability, technician experience, time of day, and season. , 2012, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[14]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  The development of a decision analytic model of changes in mean deviation in people with glaucoma: the COA model. , 2012, Ophthalmology.

[15]  R. A. Hitchings,et al.  Modelling series of visual fields to detect progression in normal-tension glaucoma , 1995, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[16]  Richard A. Russell,et al.  On alternative methods for measuring visual field decay: Tobit linear regression. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi,et al.  A method to measure and predict rates of regional visual field decay in glaucoma. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[18]  H. Akaike Likelihood of a model and information criteria , 1981 .

[19]  B. Bengtsson,et al.  A visual field index for calculation of glaucoma rate of progression. , 2008, American journal of ophthalmology.

[20]  S. Kingman Glaucoma is second leading cause of blindness globally. , 2004, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[21]  Response by the Author , 1980 .

[22]  Douglas R. Anderson Automated Static Perimetry , 1992 .

[23]  F. Mosteller,et al.  Understanding robust and exploratory data analysis , 1985 .

[24]  Stephen Doro,et al.  Conformal geometry of the retinal nerve fiber layer , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  B. Ripley,et al.  Robust Statistics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Mathematical Geosciences.

[26]  Peter J. Rousseeuw,et al.  Robust Regression and Outlier Detection , 2005, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics.