Optic Disc and Visual Field Changes in a Prospective Longitudinal Study of Patients With Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between optic disc changes measured with scanning laser tomography and those measured with conventional perimetry and optic disc photography. METHODS: In a prospective longitudinal study, we followed up 77 patients with early glaucomatous visual field damage. Scanning laser tomography (using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph) and conventional perimetry (using the Humphrey Field Analyzer) were carried out every 6 months. Disc progression was determined by a procedure recently described by us for scanning laser tomography, with confirmed progression requiring repeatable changes based on probability limits for both the depth (using individual test-retest variability values) and size of change (determined in a group of 37 healthy individuals also followed up prospectively). Field progression was determined with the Statpac Glaucoma Change Probability Analysis. The agreement between scanning laser tomography and conventional disc photography was determined in a subgroup of patients. RESULTS: Patients were followed up for a median of 5.5 years, with a median of 12 sets of examinations with scanning laser tomography and conventional perimetry. Twenty-one patients (27%) showed no progression with either technique. Thirty-one patients (40%) progressed with scanning laser tomography only, while 3 (4%) progressed with conventional perimetry only. Of the 22 patients (29%) who progressed with both techniques, 10 (45%) progressed with scanning laser tomography first (median, 18 month earlier) and 9 (41%) with conventional perimetry first (median, 12 months earlier), while 3 (14%) progressed at the same time. Of the 16 patients with disc photographs that closely overlapped the follow-up, there was concordance between scanning laser tomography and disc photography in 13 patients (81%). CONCLUSIONS: Glaucomatous disc changes determined with scanning laser tomography occur more frequently than field changes. Most patients with field changes also had disc changes; however, less than half of those with disc changes had field changes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".