Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Maximum likelihood perimetric progression analysis: Using raw (trial-by-trial) response data to estimate progression more robustly

View ORCID ProfilePete R. Jones
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.05.21251210
Pete R. Jones
1Division of Optometry and Visual Sciences, School of Health Science, City, University of London, London, England, EC1V 0HB
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Pete R. Jones
  • For correspondence: peter.jones{at}city.ac.uk
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Purpose To describe and demonstrate a more efficient (Maximum Likelihood) method for quantifying visual field progression.

Design Monte Carlo simulation.

Methods Trial-by-trial response data were simulated using a stochastic psychometric model (a “simulated observer”). Simulated Differential Light Sensitivity (DLS) decreased between tests to mimic long-term visual field progression. Progression slopes were fitted, either by fitting a regression slope to independent DLS estimates from each test (conventional method), or by fitting all the raw data combined in a single model (proposed maximum likelihood method).

Results The proposed ML method seldom performed worse than a conventional, regression-based approach, and often performed better. For an idealized observer with a lapse (false negative) rate of 0 and a guess (false positive) rate of 0, both methods were equally precise. However, as lapse rate increased, the ML method exhibited less random measurement error. For small numbers of trials this increase in precision translated to a negative progression slope being detected with 95% confidence at least one year/assessment sooner. The only time the ML method was observed to perform worse was when very few trials (N = 4) were combined with very high lapse rates (λ = 0.3): an unlikely but not inconceivable scenario.

Conclusions Combining raw, trial-by-trial response data in a single ML model can provide a more robust estimate of visual field progression than conventional methods (e.g., linear regression), at no additional cost to the patient or clinician (i.e., no additional trials).

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

No funding to declare

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Not applicable

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • MEETING PRESENTATION(S): ⟨ none ⟩

  • FINANCIAL SUPPORT: ⟨ none ⟩

  • CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No conflicting relationship exists for any author.

  • DISCLOSURES: P.R. Jones, None

Data Availability

Source code provided as Supplemental Material

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted February 08, 2021.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Maximum likelihood perimetric progression analysis: Using raw (trial-by-trial) response data to estimate progression more robustly
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Maximum likelihood perimetric progression analysis: Using raw (trial-by-trial) response data to estimate progression more robustly
Pete R. Jones
medRxiv 2021.02.05.21251210; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.05.21251210
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Maximum likelihood perimetric progression analysis: Using raw (trial-by-trial) response data to estimate progression more robustly
Pete R. Jones
medRxiv 2021.02.05.21251210; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.05.21251210

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Ophthalmology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)