Maximilian Pfau, Jasleen K Jolly, Jason Charng, Leon von der Emde, Philipp L. Mueller, Georg Ansari, Kristina Pfau, Fred K Chen, Zhichao Wu
{"title":"中视显微透视测量的多中心规范数据","authors":"Maximilian Pfau, Jasleen K Jolly, Jason Charng, Leon von der Emde, Philipp L. Mueller, Georg Ansari, Kristina Pfau, Fred K Chen, Zhichao Wu","doi":"10.1101/2024.02.05.24302327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To provide a large, multi-center normative dataset for the Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA) microperimeter and compare the goodness-of-fit and prediction interval calibration-error for a panel of hill-of-vision models. Methods: Microperimetry examinations from five independent study groups and one previously available dataset were included. Linear mixed models (LMMs) were fitted to the data to obtain interpretable hill-of-vision models. For predicting age-adjusted normative values, an array of regression models were compared using cross-validation with site-wise splits. The mean absolute error (MAE) and miscalibration area (area between the calibration curve and the ideal diagonal) were evaluated as the performance measures. Results: 1,052 tests from 531 eyes of 432 participants were included. Based on the parameters 'participant age', 'eccentricity from the fovea', 'overlap with the central fixation target' and 'eccentricity along the four principal meridians', a Bayesian mixed model had the lowest MAE (2.13 dB; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.86, 2.40 dB) and miscalibration area (0.14; 95% CI = 0.07, 0.20). However, a parsimonious linear model provided a comparable MAE (2.16 dB; 95% CI = 1.89, 2.43 dB) and a similar miscalibration area (0.14; 95% CI = 0.08, 0.20). Conclusions: Normal variations in visual sensitivity on mesopic microperimetry can be effectively explained by a linear model that includes age and eccentricity. The dataset and a code vignette are provided for estimating normative values across a large range of retinal locations, applicable to customized testing patterns.","PeriodicalId":501390,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Ophthalmology","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multicenter normative data for mesopic microperimetry\",\"authors\":\"Maximilian Pfau, Jasleen K Jolly, Jason Charng, Leon von der Emde, Philipp L. Mueller, Georg Ansari, Kristina Pfau, Fred K Chen, Zhichao Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.02.05.24302327\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To provide a large, multi-center normative dataset for the Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA) microperimeter and compare the goodness-of-fit and prediction interval calibration-error for a panel of hill-of-vision models. Methods: Microperimetry examinations from five independent study groups and one previously available dataset were included. Linear mixed models (LMMs) were fitted to the data to obtain interpretable hill-of-vision models. For predicting age-adjusted normative values, an array of regression models were compared using cross-validation with site-wise splits. The mean absolute error (MAE) and miscalibration area (area between the calibration curve and the ideal diagonal) were evaluated as the performance measures. Results: 1,052 tests from 531 eyes of 432 participants were included. Based on the parameters 'participant age', 'eccentricity from the fovea', 'overlap with the central fixation target' and 'eccentricity along the four principal meridians', a Bayesian mixed model had the lowest MAE (2.13 dB; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.86, 2.40 dB) and miscalibration area (0.14; 95% CI = 0.07, 0.20). However, a parsimonious linear model provided a comparable MAE (2.16 dB; 95% CI = 1.89, 2.43 dB) and a similar miscalibration area (0.14; 95% CI = 0.08, 0.20). Conclusions: Normal variations in visual sensitivity on mesopic microperimetry can be effectively explained by a linear model that includes age and eccentricity. The dataset and a code vignette are provided for estimating normative values across a large range of retinal locations, applicable to customized testing patterns.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.05.24302327\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.05.24302327","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:为黄斑完整性评估(MAIA)微压计提供一个大型、多中心的标准数据集,并比较一组视丘模型的拟合优度和预测间隔校准误差。方法:纳入了五个独立研究小组的微透视检查结果和一个以前可用的数据集。对数据进行线性混合模型(LMM)拟合,以获得可解释的视丘模型。为了预测年龄调整后的常模值,使用按部位分割的交叉验证对一系列回归模型进行了比较。平均绝对误差(MAE)和误校正面积(校正曲线与理想对角线之间的面积)作为性能指标进行评估。结果如下共纳入 432 名参与者 531 只眼睛的 1052 次测试。根据 "参与者年龄"、"距眼窝偏心率"、"与中心固定目标重叠 "和 "沿四条主要经线的偏心率 "等参数,贝叶斯混合模型的 MAE(2.13 dB;95% 置信区间 [CI] = 1.86,2.40 dB)和误校正面积(0.14;95% CI = 0.07,0.20)最低。然而,解析线性模型提供了相似的 MAE(2.16 dB;95% CI = 1.89,2.43 dB)和相似的误判面积(0.14;95% CI = 0.08,0.20)。结论包括年龄和偏心率在内的线性模型可以有效解释中视显微测距法视觉灵敏度的正常变化。该数据集和代码小节可用于估算大范围视网膜位置的正常值,适用于定制的测试模式。
Multicenter normative data for mesopic microperimetry
Purpose: To provide a large, multi-center normative dataset for the Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA) microperimeter and compare the goodness-of-fit and prediction interval calibration-error for a panel of hill-of-vision models. Methods: Microperimetry examinations from five independent study groups and one previously available dataset were included. Linear mixed models (LMMs) were fitted to the data to obtain interpretable hill-of-vision models. For predicting age-adjusted normative values, an array of regression models were compared using cross-validation with site-wise splits. The mean absolute error (MAE) and miscalibration area (area between the calibration curve and the ideal diagonal) were evaluated as the performance measures. Results: 1,052 tests from 531 eyes of 432 participants were included. Based on the parameters 'participant age', 'eccentricity from the fovea', 'overlap with the central fixation target' and 'eccentricity along the four principal meridians', a Bayesian mixed model had the lowest MAE (2.13 dB; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.86, 2.40 dB) and miscalibration area (0.14; 95% CI = 0.07, 0.20). However, a parsimonious linear model provided a comparable MAE (2.16 dB; 95% CI = 1.89, 2.43 dB) and a similar miscalibration area (0.14; 95% CI = 0.08, 0.20). Conclusions: Normal variations in visual sensitivity on mesopic microperimetry can be effectively explained by a linear model that includes age and eccentricity. The dataset and a code vignette are provided for estimating normative values across a large range of retinal locations, applicable to customized testing patterns.