Improved Estimates of Visual Field Progression Using Bayesian Linear Regression to Integrate Structural Information in Patients with Ocular Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess whether neuroretinal rim area (RA) measurements of the optic disc could be used to improve the estimate of the rate of change in visual field (VF) mean sensitivity in patients with ocular hypertension (OHT) using a Bayesian linear regression (BLR), compared to a standard ordinary least squares linear regression (OLSLR) of mean sensitivity (MS) measurements alone. METHODS: MS and RA measurements were analyzed from a longitudinal series of 179 patients with OHT visiting Moorfields Eye Hospital between 1992 and 2000. For each patient, linear regression of RA was computed after an appropriate transformation to "scale" RA with MS measurements, and the slope coefficient from this regression was used as a prior for BLR of MS. The BLR then was compared with the OLSLR approach by evaluating how accurately each regression technique predicted future MS measurements. RESULTS: On average, BLR was significantly more accurate than OLSLR for series up to 8 measurements long (root-mean-square prediction error [RMSPE] was 0.14 decibels [dB] smaller with BLR than OLSLR; P < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), with OLSLR of VF data alone being more accurate for longer series (RMSPE was 0.06 dB smaller with OLSLR than BLR). CONCLUSIONS: BLR provides a significantly more accurate estimate of the rate of change in MS than the standard OLSLR approach, especially in short time series, suggesting that structural measurements can be used successfully in statistical models to assist clinicians monitoring VF progression in patients with OHT. Further studies are necessary to validate the method in glaucoma patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".