A Statistical Model to Analyze Clinician Expert Consensus on Glaucoma Progression using Spatially Correlated Visual Field Data

Purpose We developed a statistical model to improve the detection of glaucomatous visual field (VF) progression as defined by the consensus of expert clinicians. Methods We developed new methodology in the Bayesian setting to properly model the progression status of a patient (as determined by a group of expert clinicians) as a function of changes in spatially correlated sensitivities at each VF location jointly. We used a spatial probit regression model that jointly incorporates all highly correlated VF changes in a single framework while accounting for structural similarities between neighboring VF regions. Results Our method had improved model fit and predictive ability compared to competing models as indicated by the deviance information criterion (198.15 vs. 201.29–213.38), a posterior predictive model selection metric (130.08 vs. 142.08–155.59), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.80 vs. 0.59–0.72; all P values < 0.018), and optimal sensitivity (0.92 vs. 0.28–0.82). Simulation study results suggest that estimation (reduction of mean squared errors) and inference (correct coverage of 95% credible intervals) for the model parameters are improved when spatial modeling is incorporated. Conclusions We developed a statistical model for the detection of VF progression defined by clinician expert consensus that accounts for spatially correlated changes in visual sensitivity over time, and showed that it outperformed competing models in a number of areas. Translational Relevance This model may easily be incorporated into routine clinical practice and be useful for detecting glaucomatous VF progression defined by clinician expert consensus.

[1]  B. Carlin,et al.  Bayesian areal wombling via adjacency modeling , 2007, Environmental and Ecological Statistics.

[2]  Chris A Johnson,et al.  Evaluation of the structure-function relationship in glaucoma. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[3]  Martin L Hazelton,et al.  Spatial modeling of visual field data for assessing glaucoma progression. , 2013, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[4]  W. Youden,et al.  Index for rating diagnostic tests , 1950, Cancer.

[5]  Sylvia Richardson,et al.  Markov chain concepts related to sampling algorithms , 1995 .

[6]  F. Fitzke,et al.  Analysis of visual field progression in glaucoma. , 1996, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[7]  S M Drance,et al.  The use of visual field indices in detecting changes in the visual field in glaucoma. , 1990, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

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

[9]  E. Capris,et al.  Agreement in Detecting Glaucomatous visual Field Progression by using Guided Progression Analysis and Humphrey Overview Printout , 2011, European journal of ophthalmology.

[10]  D. Garway-Heath,et al.  Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. , 2000, Ophthalmology.

[11]  Brenda W Gillespie,et al.  The collaborative initial glaucoma treatment study: baseline visual field and test-retest variability. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[12]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[13]  David P Crabb,et al.  Reducing noise in suspected glaucomatous visual fields by using a new spatial filter , 2004, Vision Research.

[14]  Robert N Weinreb,et al.  Patterns of glaucomatous visual field progression identified by three progression criteria. , 2004, American journal of ophthalmology.

[15]  Alan E. Gelfand,et al.  Model choice: A minimum posterior predictive loss approach , 1998, AISTATS.

[16]  William J Feuer,et al.  Interobserver agreement and intraobserver reproducibility of the subjective determination of glaucomatous visual field progression. , 2011, Ophthalmology.

[17]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  Bayesian areal wombling for geographical boundary analysis , 2005 .

[18]  A Heijl,et al.  Perimetric probability maps to separate change caused by glaucoma from that caused by cataract. , 2009, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[19]  Duncan Lee,et al.  Boundary detection in disease mapping studies. , 2011, Biostatistics.

[20]  D P Crabb,et al.  Interobserver agreement on visual field progression in glaucoma: a comparison of methods , 2003, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[21]  P. Lichter,et al.  The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. , 1999, Ophthalmology.

[22]  Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. , 1994, Ophthalmology.

[23]  J. Besag Spatial Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of Lattice Systems , 1974 .

[24]  J. Katz,et al.  Analysis of progressive change in automated visual fields in glaucoma. , 1996, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

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

[26]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit , 2002 .