Abstract
Purpose To compare the ability of linear mixed models with different random effect distributions to estimate rates of visual field loss in glaucoma patients.
Methods Eyes with ≥5 reliable standard automated perimetry (SAP) tests were identified from the Duke Glaucoma Registry. Mean deviation (MD) values from each visual field and associated timepoints were collected. These data were modeled using ordinary least square (OLS) regression and linear mixed models using the Gaussian, Student-t, or log-gamma (LG) distributions as the prior distribution for random effects. Model fit was compared using Watanabe-Akaike information criterion (WAIC). Simulated eyes of varying initial disease severity and rates of progression were created to assess the accuracy of each model in predicting the rate of change and likelihood of declaring progression.
Results A total of 52,900 visual fields from 6,558 eyes of 3,981 subjects were included. Mean follow-up period was 8.7±4.0 years, with an average of 8.1±3.7 visual fields per eye. The LG model produced the lowest WAIC, demonstrating optimal model fit. In simulations, the LG model declared progression earlier than OLS (P<0.001) and had the greatest accuracy in predicted slopes (P<0.001). The Gaussian model significantly underestimated rates of progression among fast and catastrophic progressors.
Conclusions Linear mixed models using the LG distribution outperformed conventional approaches for estimating rates of SAP MD loss in a population with glaucoma.
Translational Relevance Use of the LG distribution in models estimating rates of change among glaucoma patients may improve their accuracy in rapidly identifying progressors at high risk for vision loss.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Supported in part by National Institutes of Health/National Eye Institute grant EY029885 (FAM), EY031898 (FAM). The funding organization had no role in the design or conduct of this research.
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:
Duke University IRB
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
Supported in part by National Institutes of Health/National Eye Institute grant EY029885 (FAM), EY031898 (FAM). The organization had no role in the design or conduct of this research.
Disclosures: SSS: Sight Sciences (C), Ivantis (C), Heidelberg Engineering (S), Lumata Health (C); SIB: none; AAJ: none; JSR: none; FAM: Alcon Laboratories (C, L, S), Allergan (C, L), Aerie Pharmaceuticals (C), Galimedix (C), Stuart Therapeutics (C), Google, Inc. (S), Genentech, Inc (S), Apple, Inc. (L), Bausch & Lomb (F), Carl Zeiss Meditec (C, S), Heidelberg Engineering (L), nGoggle Inc. (P), Reichert (C, S), National Institutes of Health/National Eye Institute (S).
Data Availability
Data is available upon reasonable request.
