A new static visual field test algorithm: the Ambient Interactive ZEST (AIZE).
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 09 2023
11 09 2023
Historique:
received:
08
07
2023
accepted:
07
09
2023
medline:
13
9
2023
pubmed:
12
9
2023
entrez:
11
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Visual field (VF) test is one of the most vital tests in the diagnosis of glaucoma and to monitor the disease worsening. In the past couple of decades, the standard automated perimetry (SAP) test takes a major role in VF test for glaucoma patients. The SAP has been demanded to finish a test in short time without sacrificing accuracy. In this study, we developed and evaluated the performance of a new perimetric algorithm (ambient interactive zippy estimation by sequential testing (ZEST): AIZE) by computer simulation. AIZE is a modification of the ZEST procedure that utilizes the spatial information (weighted likelihood: WL) of neighboring test locations, which varies from the distance to the tested location, to estimate a visual threshold. Ten glaucomatous and 10 normal empirical visual field (VF) test results were simulated with five error conditions [(3% false positives (FP), 3% false negatives (FN)), (9% FP, 9% FN), (15% FP, 15% FN), (3% FP, 15% FN), (15% FP, 3% FN)]. The total number of test presentations and the root mean square error (RMSE) of the estimated visual sensitivities were compared among AIZE, the non-weighted test (WL = 0) and the fixed-weighted test (WL = 0.33). In both glaucomatous (G) and normal (N) VFs, the fixed-weighted test had the lowest number of test presentations (median G 256, N 139), followed by the AIZE (G 285, N 174) and the non-weighted test (G 303, N 195). The RMSE of the fixed-weighted test was lower (median 1.7 dB) than that of the AIZE (1.9 dB) and the non-weighted test (1.9 dB) for normal VFs, whereas the AIZE had a lower RMSE (3.2 dB) than the fixed-weighted test (4.5 dB) and the non-weighted test (4.0 dB) for glaucomatous VFs. Simulation results showed that AIZE had fewer test presentations than the non-weighted test strategy without affecting the accuracy for glaucomatous VFs. The AIZE is a useful time saving test algorithm in clinical settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37696993
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42266-z
pii: 10.1038/s41598-023-42266-z
pmc: PMC10495312
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
14945Informations de copyright
© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Keltner, J. L., Johnson, C. A. & Lewis, R. A. Quantitative office perimetry. Ophthalmology 92(7), 862–872 (1985).
doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(85)33943-X
pubmed: 4022569
Bengtsson, B., Heijl, A. & Olsson, J. Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 76(2), 165–169 (1998).
doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0420.1998.760208.x
pubmed: 9591946
Bengtsson, B. & Heijl, A. Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 76(3), 268–272 (1998).
doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0420.1998.760303.x
pubmed: 9686835
Heijl, A. & Drance, S. M. Changes in differential threshold in patients with glaucoma during prolonged perimetry. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 67, 512–516 (1983).
doi: 10.1136/bjo.67.8.512
pubmed: 6871143
pmcid: 1040109
Hudson, C., Wild, J. M. & O’Neill, E. C. Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 35, 268–280 (1994).
pubmed: 8300355
Johnson, C. A., Adams, C. W. & Lewis, R. A. Fatigue effects in automated perimetry. Appl. Opt. 27, 1030–1037 (1988).
doi: 10.1364/AO.27.001030
pubmed: 20531515
Olsson, J., Bengtsson, B., Heijl, A. & Rootzen, H. An improved method to estimate frequency of false positive answers in computerized perimetry. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 75(2), 181–183 (1997).
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.1997.tb00120.x
pubmed: 9197569
Heijl, A. & Krakau, C. E. An automatic perimeter for glaucoma visual field screening and control. Construction and clinical cases. Albert Von Grafes Arch. Klin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 197(1), 13–23 (1975).
doi: 10.1007/BF00506636
Olsson, J. & Rootzen, H. An image model for quantal response analysis in perimetry. Scand. J. Stat. 8, 375–387 (1994).
Chong, L. X., McKendrick, A. M., Ganeshrao, S. B. & Turpin, A. Customized, automated stimulus location choice for assessment of visual field defects introduction of goanna. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 55, 3265–3274 (2014).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-13761
pubmed: 24781947
Rubinstein, N. J., McKendrick, A. M. & Turpin, A. Incorporating spatial models in visual field test procedures. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 5, 7 (2016).
doi: 10.1167/tvst.5.2.7
pubmed: 26981329
pmcid: 4790418
Gardiner, S. K., Swanson, W. H., Goren, D., Mansberger, S. L. & Derirel, S. Assessment of the relaiability of standard automated perimetry in regions of glaucomatous damage. Ophthalmology 121(7), 1359–1369 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.01.020
pubmed: 24629617
Numata, T. et al. Exploring test-retest variability using high-resolution perimetry. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 6(5), 8 (2017).
doi: 10.1167/tvst.6.5.8
pubmed: 29046828
pmcid: 5629923
Heijl, A. & Krakau, C. E. An automated static perimeter, design and pilot study. Acta Ophtalmol. (Copenh.) 53(3), 293–310 (1975).
doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1975.tb01161.x
Frankhauser, F., Spahr, J. & Babie, H. Some aspects of the automation of perimetry. Surv. Ophthalmol. 22(2), 131–141 (1977).
doi: 10.1016/0039-6257(77)90094-7
pubmed: 335547
Anderson, D. R. & Patella, V. M. (eds) Automated Static Perimetry (Mosby, 1999).
Yohannan, J. et al. Evidence-based criteria for assessment of visual field reliability. Ophthalmology 124(11), 1612–1620 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.04.035
pubmed: 28676280
Katz, J. & Sommer, A. Reliability index of automated perimetric test. Arch. Ophthalmol. 106(9), 1252–1254 (1988).
doi: 10.1001/archopht.1988.01060140412043
pubmed: 3046588
Bengtsson, B. & Heijl, A. False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: Indicators pf patient performance or test reliability?. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vsi. Sci. 41(8), 2201–2204 (2000).
Matsumoto, C. et al. Visual field testing with head mounted perimeter ‘imo’. PLoS ONE 11(8), e0161974 (2016).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161974
pubmed: 27564382
pmcid: 5001626
Kimura, T., Nomoto, H. & Matsumoto, C. Comparison of head-mounted perimeter (imo) and humphrey field analyzer. Clin. Ophthalmol. 13, 501–513 (2019).
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S190995
pubmed: 30936681
pmcid: 6422415
Sakamoto, M. et al. Agreement in the detection of chiasmal and postchiasmal visual field defects between imo binocular random single-eye test and Humphrey monocular test. Jpn. J. Ophthalmol. 66(5), 413–424 (2022).
doi: 10.1007/s10384-022-00935-y
pubmed: 35972588
Gardiner, S. K., Crabb, D. P., Fitzke, F. W. & Hitchings, R. A. Reducing noise in suspected glaucomatous visual fields by using a new spatial filter. Vis. Res. 44(8), 839–848 (2004).
doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00474-7
pubmed: 14967209
Lamparter, J. et al. The influence of intersubject variability in ocular anatomical variables on the mapping of retinal locations to the retinal nerve fiber layer and optic nerve head. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vsi. Sci. 54, 6074–6082 (2013).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-11902
Turpin, A., Sampson, G. P. & McKendrick, A. M. Combining ganglion cell topology and data of patients with glaucoma to determine a structure-function map. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vsi. Sci. 50, 3249–3256 (2009).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.08-2492
Chauhan, B. C. & Burgoyne, C. F. From clinical examination of the optic disc to clinical assessment of the optic nerve head: A paradigm change. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 156, 218–227 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.04.016
pubmed: 23768651
pmcid: 3720683
King-Smith, P. E., Grigsby, S. S., Vingrys, A. J., Benes, S. C. & Supowit, A. Efficient and unbiased modifications of the QUEST threshold method: Theory, simulations, experimental evaluation and practical implementation. Vis. Res. 34(7), 885–912 (1994).
doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(94)90039-6
pubmed: 8160402
Bryan, S. R., Vermeer, K. A., Eilers, P. H., Lemij, H. G. & Lesaffre, E. M. Robust and censored modeling and prediction of progression in glaucomatous visual fields. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 54, 6694–6700 (2013).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-11185
pubmed: 24030462
Erler, N. S. et al. Optimizing structure–function relationship by maximizing correspondence between glaucomatous visual fields and mathematical retinal nerve fiber models optimization of structural RNFL models on visual fields. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 55, 2350–2357 (2014).
doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-12492
pubmed: 24644052
Henson, D. B., Chaudry, S., Artes, P. H., Faragher, E. B. & Ansons, A. Response variability in the visual field: Comparison of optic neuritis, glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal eyes. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 41, 417–421 (2000).
pubmed: 10670471