Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma: Estimating the Overall Significance of Deterioration with Permutation Analyses of Pointwise Linear Regression (PoPLR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To establish a method for estimating the overall statistical significance of visual field deterioration from an individual patient's data, and to compare its performance to pointwise linear regression. METHODS: The Truncated Product Method was used to calculate a statistic S that combines evidence of deterioration from individual test locations in the visual field. The overall statistical significance (P value) of visual field deterioration was inferred by comparing S with its permutation distribution, derived from repeated reordering of the visual field series. Permutation of pointwise linear regression (PoPLR) and pointwise linear regression were evaluated in data from patients with glaucoma (944 eyes, median mean deviation -2.9 dB, interquartile range: -6.3, -1.2 dB) followed for more than 4 years (median 10 examinations over 8 years). False-positive rates were estimated from randomly reordered series of this dataset, and hit rates (proportion of eyes with significant deterioration) were estimated from the original series. RESULTS: The false-positive rates of PoPLR were indistinguishable from the corresponding nominal significance levels and were independent of baseline visual field damage and length of follow-up. At P < 0.05, the hit rates of PoPLR were 12, 29, and 42%, at the fifth, eighth, and final examinations, respectively, and at matching specificities they were consistently higher than those of pointwise linear regression. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to population-based progression analyses, PoPLR provides a continuous estimate of statistical significance for visual field deterioration individualized to a particular patient's data. This allows close control over specificity, essential for monitoring patients in clinical practice and in clinical trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.056 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".