Aim To evaluate the usefulness of the application of the clustering method to the trend analysis (sectorwise regression) in comparison with the pointwise linear regression (PLR).
Methods This study included 153 eyes of 101 patients with open-angle glaucoma. With PLR, the total deviation (TD) values of the 10th visual field (VF) were predicted using the shorter VF sequences (from first 3 to 9) by extrapolating TD values against time in a pointwise manner. Then, 68 test points were stratified into 29 sectors. In each sector, the mean of TD values was calculated and allocated to all test points belonging to the sector. Subsequently, the TD values of the 10th VF were predicted by extrapolating the allocated TD value against time in a pointwise manner. Similar analyses were conducted to predict the 11th–16th VFs using the first 10 VFs.
Results When predicting the 10th VF using the shorter sequences, the mean absolute error (MAE) values were significantly smaller in the sectorwise regression than in PLR. When predicting from the 11th and 16th VFs using the first 10 VFs, the MAE values were significantly larger in the sectorwise regression than in PLR when predicting the 11th VF; however, no significant difference was observed with other VF predictions.
Conclusion Accurate prediction was achieved using the sectorwise regression, in particular when a small number of VFs were used in the prediction. The accuracy of the sectorwise regression was not hampered in longer follow-up compared with PLR.
- visual field
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors TO and RA contributed for the design of the work, the data analysis and drafting the manuscript. HM, YF, MM, TY, AM, YI, KM and MT contributed for the data acquisition and supervision of the study. All authors contributed to the final approval of the version published.
Funding This study was supported in part by grants (19H01114, 18KK0253, and 20K09784 (RA)) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan and the Translational Research program; grants from the Strategic Promotion for practical application of Innovative medical Technology (TR-SPRINT) from Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED); grants AIP acceleration research from the Japan Science and Technology Agency (RA); grants from Suzuken Memorial Foundation and Mitsui Life Social Welfare Foundation; and grants from the Suzuken Memorial Foundation and Mitsui Life Social Welfare Foundation.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.