6533b862fe1ef96bd12c621e

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Deep Learning Estimation of 10-2 and 24-2 Visual Field Metrics Based on Thickness Maps from Macula OCT.

Linda M. ZangwillJasmin RezapourJasmin RezapourChristopher BowdChristopher A. GirkinJeffrey M. LiebmannAkram BelghithMassimo A. FazioMark ChristopherMichael H. GoldbaumRobert N. WeinrebJames A. ProudfootGustavo C. De Moraes

subject

MaleDesign evaluationGlaucoma03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicinePattern standard deviationDeep LearningLinear regressionDiagnostic technologyMedicineHumansMacula LuteaIntraocular Pressure030304 developmental biologyAged0303 health sciencesbusiness.industryOutcome measuresGlaucomaMiddle Agedmedicine.diseaseConfidence intervalVisual fieldOphthalmologyBenchmarkingCross-Sectional Studies030221 ophthalmology & optometryFemaleVisual FieldsbusinessNuclear medicineTomography Optical CoherenceFollow-Up Studies

description

Purpose To develop deep learning (DL) systems estimating visual function from macula-centered spectral-domain (SD) OCT images. Design Evaluation of a diagnostic technology. Participants A total of 2408 10-2 visual field (VF) SD OCT pairs and 2999 24-2 VF SD OCT pairs collected from 645 healthy and glaucoma subjects (1222 eyes). Methods Deep learning models were trained on thickness maps from Spectralis macula SD OCT to estimate 10-2 and 24-2 VF mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD). Individual and combined DL models were trained using thickness data from 6 layers (retinal nerve fiber layer [RNFL], ganglion cell layer [GCL], inner plexiform layer [IPL], ganglion cell-IPL [GCIPL], ganglion cell complex [GCC] and retina). Linear regression of mean layer thicknesses were used for comparison. Main Outcome Measures Deep learning models were evaluated using R2 and mean absolute error (MAE) compared with 10-2 and 24-2 VF measurements. Results Combined DL models estimating 10-2 achieved R2 of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68–0.89) for MD and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55–0.81) for PSD and MAEs of 1.9 dB (95% CI, 1.6–2.4 dB) for MD and 1.5 dB (95% CI, 1.2–1.9 dB) for PSD. This was significantly better than mean thickness estimates for 10-2 MD (0.61 [95% CI, 0.47–0.71] and 3.0 dB [95% CI, 2.5–3.5 dB]) and 10-2 PSD (0.46 [95% CI, 0.31–0.60] and 2.3 dB [95% CI, 1.8–2.7 dB]). Combined DL models estimating 24-2 achieved R2 of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72–0.84) for MD and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53–0.79) for PSD and MAEs of 2.1 dB (95% CI, 1.8–2.5 dB) for MD and 1.5 dB (95% CI, 1.3–1.9 dB) for PSD. This was significantly better than mean thickness estimates for 24-2 MD (0.41 [95% CI, 0.26–0.57] and 3.4 dB [95% CI, 2.7–4.5 dB]) and 24-2 PSD (0.38 [95% CI, 0.20–0.57] and 2.4 dB [95% CI, 2.0–2.8 dB]). The GCIPL (R2 = 0.79) and GCC (R2 = 0.75) had the highest performance estimating 10-2 and 24-2 MD, respectively. Conclusions Deep learning models improved estimates of functional loss from SD OCT imaging. Accurate estimates can help clinicians to individualize VF testing to patients.

10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.04.022https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33901527