Dataset Information

UWHVF: A Real-World, Open Source Dataset of Perimetry Tests From the Humphrey Field Analyzer at the University of Washington.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This article describes the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) dataset from the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Washington.

Methods

Pointwise sensitivities were extracted from HFA 24-2, stimulus III visual fields (VF). Total deviation (TD), mean TD (MTD), pattern deviation, and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were calculated. Progression analysis was performed with simple linear regression on global, regional, and pointwise values for VF series with greater than four tests spanning at least four months. VF data were extracted independently of clinical information except for patient age, gender, and laterality.

Results

This dataset includes 28,943 VFs from 7248 eyes of 3871 patients. Progression was calculated for 2985 eyes from 1579 patients. Median [interquartile range] age was 64 years [54, 73], and follow-up was 2.49 years [1.11, 5.03]. Baseline MTD was -4.51 dB [-8.01, -2.65], and baseline PSD was 2.41 dB [1.7, 5.34].

Conclusion

MTD was found to decrease by -0.10 dB/yr [-0.40, 0.11] in eyes for which progression analysis was able to be performed. VFs with deep localized defects, PSD > 12 dB and MTD -15 dB to -25 dB, were plotted, visually inspected, and found to be consistent with neurologic or glaucomatous VFs from patients. For a small number of tests, extracted sensitivity values were compared to corresponding printouts and confirmed to match.

Translational relevance

This open access pointwise VF dataset serves as a source of raw data for investigation such as VF behavior, clinical comparisons to trials, and development of new machine learning algorithms.

SUBMITTER: Montesano G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8742531 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

UWHVF: A Real-World, Open Source Dataset of Perimetry Tests From the Humphrey Field Analyzer at the University of Washington.

Montesano Giovanni G Chen Andrew A Lu Randy R Lee Cecilia S CS Lee Aaron Y AY

Translational vision science & technology 20220101 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>This article describes the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) dataset from the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Washington.<h4>Methods</h4>Pointwise sensitivities were extracted from HFA 24-2, stimulus III visual fields (VF). Total deviation (TD), mean TD (MTD), pattern deviation, and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were calculated. Progression analysis was performed with simple linear regression on global, regional, and pointwise values for VF series with greater tha ...[more]

PMID: 34978561

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the Advanced Vision Analyzer (AVA; Elisar Vision Technology) and to compare pointwise threshold sensitivity and functional correlation of Elisar Standard Algorithm (ESA) with the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc).DesignProspective, cross-sectional, observational case series.ParticipantsOne hundred sixty eyes (85 control participants, 75 glaucoma patients) for functional assessment, 15 eyes for test-retest variability (TRV), 107 eyes for blind spot trial (45 normal eyes, 62 glaucoma eyes) were recruited consecutively. A separate group of participants was chosen for each assessment.MethodsAll participants underwent ESA and SITA Standard 24-2 testing, and 1 eye of each participant was selected randomly. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman, linear regression, mean bias (MB), and proportional bias analyses were quantified and assessed. Threshold measurements, TRV, and blind spot location accuracy were compared with those of the HFA.Main outcome measuresPointwise threshold sensitivity, sectoral mean sensitivity (MS), mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), TRV, blind spot location, average test time were computed, and data were correlated.ResultsThe mean time required to perform a field test with the AVA was 7.08 ± 1.55 minutes and with HFA was 6.26 ± 0.54 minutes (P = 0.228). The MS difference between AVA and HFA was -2.2 ± 2.3 dB in healthy participants (P < 0.001) and -2.6 ± 3.5 dB in participants with glaucoma (P < 0.001). The correlation coefficients for pointwise threshold values were moderately to strongly correlated for both the devices (r = 0.68-0.89). For MS, the overall ICC value was 0.893 (P < 0.001) with MB of 2.48 dB and a limits of agreement (LOA) of 10.90 (range, 7.93 to -2.97). For TRV, response variability decreased with an increase in sensitivity and increased with eccentricity. Blind spot location was accurate, and global indices of testing methods correlated well.ConclusionsThe AVA effectively captures threshold values for each point in the visual field. Adequate functional correlation suggests substantial equivalence between the AVA (ESA) and HFA (SITA Standard), implying that AVA may allow accurate assessment of visual field.

Project description:PurposeThe tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) visual field (VF) test and the IMOvifa Smart Visual Function Analyzer (SVFA) are portable perimeters that may allow for at-home monitoring and more frequent testing. We compared tablet and SVFA results with outputs from the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard program.DesignObservational cross-sectional study.SubjectsAdult participants with a diagnosis of glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, or ocular hypertension seen in the Massachusetts Eye and Ear glaucoma clinic were enrolled. All participants were reliable and experienced HFA testers.MethodsParticipants were tested with the SVFA and HFA. The study staff also trained participants on the MRF tablet with instructions to take weekly tests at home for 3 months. Visual field results from the 3 devices were compared.Main outcome measuresMean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), reliability parameters, and point sensitivity.ResultsOverall, 79 participants (133 eyes) with a mean age of 61 ± 13 years (range, 26-79 years) were included; 59% of the participants were female, and the mean HFA MD was -2.7 ± 3.9 dB. The global indices of MD and PSD did not significantly vary between HFA and the 2 novel devices, except that the tablet VF reported a 0.6 dB higher PSD compared with HFA. However, tablet and SVFA sensitivities significantly differed from those of the HFA at 36 and 39 locations, respectively, out of 52 locations. Relative to HFA, the tablet overestimated light sensitivity in the nasal field while underestimating the temporal field. The SVFA generally underestimated light sensitivity, but its results were more similar to HFA results compared with the tablet.ConclusionsAlthough average MD values from the 2 novel devices suggest that they provide similar results to the HFA, point-by-point comparisons highlight notable deviations. Differences in specific point sensitivity values were significant, especially between the tablet and the other 2 devices. These differences may in part be explained by differences in the devices' normative databases as well as how MD is calculated. However, the tablet had substantial differences based on location, indicating that the tablet design itself may be responsible for differences in local sensitivities.Financial disclosure(s)Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Project description:PurposeTo compare visual fields on the Nidek MP-1 to those obtained on the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) in healthy volunteers and assess the effects of differences in stimulus parameters and testing strategies that may influence the interpretation of results in patients. A secondary aim was to establish MP-1 normative data to calculate the total deviation analyses and global indices analogous to those used by the HFA.MethodsFifty healthy volunteers (age 43.5 ± 13.9 years, range, 18 to 68 years) underwent repeat MP-1 and HFA visual field testing, using the 10-2 pattern. MP-1 data were converted to HFA equivalent dB units. Between instrument comparisons of HFA and MP-1 sensitivities, regression of sensitivity with age and examination duration were assessed. Test-retest variability was examined between visits.ResultsMP-1 (mean = 32.82 dB, SD = 1.92 dB) and HFA sensitivities (mean = 32.84 dB, SD = 1.83 dB) were not significantly different (p = 0.759). SD values for the HFA (range, 1.11 to 3.30 dB) were similar to the MP-1 (range, 0.14 to 2.75 dB). However, asymmetry comparisons between instruments showed significantly decreased superior rather than inferior retinal values for the MP-1. There was a small but significant difference (p = 0.004) in mean test duration between the MP-1 (mean = 6:11 min, SD = 1:49 min) and the HFA (mean = 5:14 min, SD = 0:42 min). There was also a difference in the decline of mean sensitivity with age, a decline of 0.1 and 0.4 dB per decade was noted in MP-1 and HFA sensitivity, respectively. Test-retest variability was similar between instruments. A small but non-significant increase in mean sensitivity at the second visit for both the MP-1 (p = 0.060) and HFA (p = 0.570) was found.ConclusionsBoth instruments showed similar variability and test-retest variability when results were compared using equivalent units. However, there are important differences in sensitivity values, stimulus parameters, and testing strategies that have to be taken into account when comparisons are made.

Dataset Information

UWHVF: A Real-World, Open Source Dataset of Perimetry Tests From the Humphrey Field Analyzer at the University of Washington.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Translational relevance

Publications

UWHVF: A Real-World, Open Source Dataset of Perimetry Tests From the Humphrey Field Analyzer at the University of Washington.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets