Visual Field Outcomes from the Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Laser in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension Trial (LiGHT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare visual field outcomes of ocular hypertensive and glaucoma patients treated first with medical therapy with those treated first with selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT). DESIGN: Secondary analysis of patients from the Laser in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension study, a multicenter randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred forty-four patients (588 eyes) treated first with medical therapy and 344 patients (590 eyes) treated first with SLT. METHODS: Visual fields (VFs) were measured using standard automated perimetry and arranged in series (median length and duration, 9 VFs over 48 months). Hierarchical linear models were used to estimate pointwise VF progression rates, which were then averaged to produce a global progression estimate for each eye. Proportions of points and patients in each treatment group with fast (<-1 dB/year) or moderate (<-0.5 dB/year) progression were compared using log-binomial regression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pointwise and global progression rates of total deviation (TD) and pattern deviation (PD). RESULTS: A greater proportion of eyes underwent moderate or fast TD progression in the medical therapy group compared with the SLT group (26.2% vs. 16.9%; risk ratio [RR], 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.93; P < 0.001). A similar pattern was observed for pointwise rates (medical therapy, 26.1% vs. SLT, 19.0%; RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.33-1.42; P < 0.001). A greater proportion of pointwise PD rates were categorized as moderate or fast in the medical therapy group (medical therapy, 11.5% vs. SLT, 8.3%; RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.32-1.46; P < 0.001). No statistical difference was found in the proportion of eyes that underwent moderate or fast PD progression (medical therapy, 9.9% vs. SLT, 7.1%; RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.95, 2.03; P = 0.0928). CONCLUSIONS: A slightly larger proportion of ocular hypertensive and glaucoma patients treated first with medical therapy underwent rapid VF progression compared with those treated first with SLT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".