Validating Variational Bayes Linear Regression Method With Multi-Central Datasets.

PurposeTo validate the prediction accuracy of variational Bayes linear regression (VBLR) with two datasets external to the training dataset.MethodThe training dataset consisted of 7268 eyes of 4278 subjects from the University of Tokyo Hospital. The Japanese Archive of Multicentral Databases in Glaucoma (JAMDIG) dataset consisted of 271 eyes of 177 patients, and the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS) dataset includes 248 eyes of 173 patients, which were used for validation. Prediction accuracy was compared between the VBLR and ordinary least squared linear regression (OLSLR). First, OLSLR and VBLR were carried out using total deviation (TD) values at each of the 52 test points from the second to fourth visual fields (VFs) (VF2-4) to 2nd to 10th VF (VF2-10) of each patient in JAMDIG and DIGS datasets, and the TD values of the 11th VF test were predicted every time. The predictive accuracy of each method was compared through the root mean squared error (RMSE) statistic.ResultsOLSLR RMSEs with the JAMDIG and DIGS datasets were between 31 and 4.3 dB, and between 19.5 and 3.9 dB. On the other hand, VBLR RMSEs with JAMDIG and DIGS datasets were between 5.0 and 3.7, and between 4.6 and 3.6 dB. There was statistically significant difference between VBLR and OLSLR for both datasets at every series (VF2-4 to VF2-10) (P < 0.01 for all tests). However, there was no statistically significant difference in VBLR RMSEs between JAMDIG and DIGS datasets at any series of VFs (VF2-2 to VF2-10) (P > 0.05).ConclusionsVBLR outperformed OLSLR to predict future VF progression, and the VBLR has a potential to be a helpful tool at clinical settings

Applying ''Lasso'' Regression to Predict Future Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma Patients

Citation: Fujino Y, Murata H, Mayama C, Asaoka R. Applying ''Lasso'' regression to predict future visual field progression in glaucoma patients

Prevalence of Epiretinal Membrane among Subjects in a Health Examination Program in Japan

The prevalence of an epiretinal membrane (ERM) was elucidated using a dataset from a health examination program database in Japan. From the cohort database, 5042 eyes of 2552 subjects were included. The presence of an ERM, cellophane macular reflex (CMR), or preretinal macular fibrosis (PMF) was detected using color fundus photographs, and crude and age-standardized prevalence were obtained. To further assess the possible risk factors of ERM, background parameters were compared between ERM+ and − groups, and multiple logistic regression analysis was performed. ERM was detected in fundus photographs of 275 eyes (eye-based prevalence of 5.5%) from 217 subjects (subject-based prevalence of 8.5%). CMR was detected in 169 eyes (3.4%) of 138 subjects (5.4%), and PMF was detected in 106 eyes (2.1%) of 97 subjects (3.8%). By univariate analyses, compared with ERM− eyes or subjects, higher Scheie’s H grade (p < 0.0001), S grade (p < 0.0001), and glaucoma prevalence (p = 0.0440) were found in ERM+ eyes, and older age (p < 0.0001), more frequent histories of hypertension (p = 0.0033) and hyperlipidemia (p = 0.0441), and more frequent uses of medication for hypertension (p = 0.0034) and hyperlipidemia (p = 0.0074), shorter body height (p = 0.0122), and higher systolic blood pressure (p = 0.0078), and thicker intimal medial thickness (p = 0.0318) were found in ERM+ subjects. By multivariate analyses, older age (p < 0.0001, estimate = 0.05/year) was the only significant factor of ERM prevalence. Age-standardized prevalence of ERM was calculated to be 2.4%, 6.7%, and 13.3% for all ages, subjects older than 40 years, and subjects older than 65 years, respectively. We reported the prevalence of ERM and its subclasses in Japanese subjects. Since its prevalence is remarkably high in older subjects, an ERM can be seen as an important cause of visual impairment in Japan and in areas of the world where individuals live to an advanced age

Investigating the clinical validity of the guided progression analysis definition with 10-2 visual field in retinitis pigmentosa.

PurposeTo investigate the clinical validity of the Guided Progression Analysis definition (GPAD) and cluster-based definition (CBD) with the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 10-2 test in retinitis pigmentosa (RP).MethodsTen non-progressive RP visual fields (VFs) (HFA 10-2 test) were simulated for each of 10 VFs of 111 eyes (10 simulations × 10 VF sequencies × 111 eyes = 111,000 VFs; Dataset 1). Using these simulated VFs, the specificity of GPAD for the detection of progression was determined. Using this dataset, similar analyses were conducted for the CBD, in which the HFA 10-2 test was divided into four quadrants. Subsequently, the Hybrid Definition was designed by combining the GPAD and CBD; various conditions of the GPAD and CBD were altered to approach a specificity of 95.0%. Subsequently, actual HFA 10-2 tests of 116 RP eyes (10 VFs each) were collected (Dataset 2), and true positive rate, true negative rate, false positive rate, and the time required to detect VF progression were evaluated and compared across the GPAD, CBD, and Hybrid Definition.ResultsSpecificity values were 95.4% and 98.5% for GPAD and CBD, respectively. There were no significant differences in true positive rate, true negative rate, and false positive rate between the GPAD, CBD, and Hybrid Definition. The GPAD and Hybrid Definition detected progression significantly earlier than the CBD (at 4.5, 5.0, and 4.5 years, respectively).ConclusionsThe GPAD and the optimized Hybrid Definition exhibited similar ability for the detection of progression, with the specificity reaching 95.4%