Clinical Correlates of Computationally Derived Visual Field Defect Archetypes in Patients from a Glaucoma Clinic

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the clinical validity of visual field (VF) archetypal analysis, a previously developed machine learning method for decomposing any Humphrey VF (24‒2) into a weighted sum of clinically recognizable VF loss patterns. Materials and Methods: For each of 16 previously identified VF loss patterns (“archetypes,” denoted AT1 through AT16), we screened 30,995 reliable VFs to select 10–20 representative patients whose VFs had the highest decomposition coefficients for each archetype. VF global indices and patient ocular and demographic features were extracted retrospectively. Based on resemblances between VF archetypes and clinically observed VF patterns, hypotheses were generated for associations between certain VF archetypes and clinical features, such as an association between AT6 (central island, representing severe VF loss) and large cup-to-disk ratio (CDR). Distributions of the selected clinical features were compared between representative eyes of certain archetypes and all other eyes using the two-tailed t-test or Fisher exact test. Results: 243 eyes from 243 patients were included, representative of AT1 through AT16. CDR was more often ≥ 0.7 among eyes representative of AT6 (central island; p = 0.002), AT10 (inferior arcuate defect; p = 0.048), AT14 (superior paracentral defect; p = 0.016), and AT16 (inferior paracentral defect; p = 0.016) than other eyes. CDR was more often < 0.7 among eyes representative of AT1 (no focal defect; p < 0.001) and AT2 (superior defect; p = 0.027), which was also associated with ptosis (p < 0.001). AT12 (temporal hemianopia) was associated with history of stroke (p = 0.022). AT11 (concentric peripheral defect) trended toward association with trial lens correction > 6D (p = 0.069). Conclusions: Shared clinical features between computationally derived VF archetypes and clinically observed VF patterns support the clinical validity of VF archetypal analysis.

Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure: Revisiting Factors Influencing Optic Nerve Head Biomechanics

“…For this purpose, we used a technique called archetypal analysis. 51 – 53 Archetypes are cases selected in the multidimensional response space such that all other cases can be represented as convex combinations of the archetypes. In other words, the archetypes are examples of extreme cases.…”

Deep learning in ophthalmology: The technical and clinical considerations

“…Elze et al developed an unsupervised algorithm termed archetype analysis to identify VF loss patterns that include glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous deficits and provide weighting coefficients for these patterns. 77 This algorithm has been validated 78 and has proven useful in augmenting the GHT for the detection of early functional glaucomatous loss. 79 Using an entirely different strategy, Li et al trained a CNN to learn the Pattern Deviation probability plots of normal and glaucomatous eyes and was able to detect glaucoma with 93.2% sensitivity and 82.6 sensitivity.…”

Clinical Evaluation of Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm–Faster Compared With Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm–Standard in Normal Subjects, Glaucoma Suspects, and Patients With Glaucoma

“…We have previously reported on cluster analysis across the visual field for highlighting contrast sensitivity isocontours, 43,44 which is slightly different to other approaches seeking to characterize archetypes of deficit patterns. 45 Additional details regarding this analysis are provided in the Supplemental Material (available at AJO.com).…”