Cargando…

Validating Variational Bayes Linear Regression Method With Multi-Central Datasets

PURPOSE: To validate the prediction accuracy of variational Bayes linear regression (VBLR) with two datasets external to the training dataset. METHOD: The training dataset consisted of 7268 eyes of 4278 subjects from the University of Tokyo Hospital. The Japanese Archive of Multicentral Databases in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Murata, Hiroshi, Zangwill, Linda M., Fujino, Yuri, Matsuura, Masato, Miki, Atsuya, Hirasawa, Kazunori, Tanito, Masaki, Mizoue, Shiro, Mori, Kazuhiko, Suzuki, Katsuyoshi, Yamashita, Takehiro, Kashiwagi, Kenji, Shoji, Nobuyuki, Asaoka, Ryo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5886131/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29677350
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-22907
_version_ 1783312090094632960
author Murata, Hiroshi
Zangwill, Linda M.
Fujino, Yuri
Matsuura, Masato
Miki, Atsuya
Hirasawa, Kazunori
Tanito, Masaki
Mizoue, Shiro
Mori, Kazuhiko
Suzuki, Katsuyoshi
Yamashita, Takehiro
Kashiwagi, Kenji
Shoji, Nobuyuki
Asaoka, Ryo
author_facet Murata, Hiroshi
Zangwill, Linda M.
Fujino, Yuri
Matsuura, Masato
Miki, Atsuya
Hirasawa, Kazunori
Tanito, Masaki
Mizoue, Shiro
Mori, Kazuhiko
Suzuki, Katsuyoshi
Yamashita, Takehiro
Kashiwagi, Kenji
Shoji, Nobuyuki
Asaoka, Ryo
author_sort Murata, Hiroshi
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To validate the prediction accuracy of variational Bayes linear regression (VBLR) with two datasets external to the training dataset. METHOD: The training dataset consisted of 7268 eyes of 4278 subjects from the University of Tokyo Hospital. The Japanese Archive of Multicentral Databases in Glaucoma (JAMDIG) dataset consisted of 271 eyes of 177 patients, and the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS) dataset includes 248 eyes of 173 patients, which were used for validation. Prediction accuracy was compared between the VBLR and ordinary least squared linear regression (OLSLR). First, OLSLR and VBLR were carried out using total deviation (TD) values at each of the 52 test points from the second to fourth visual fields (VFs) (VF2–4) to 2nd to 10th VF (VF2–10) of each patient in JAMDIG and DIGS datasets, and the TD values of the 11th VF test were predicted every time. The predictive accuracy of each method was compared through the root mean squared error (RMSE) statistic. RESULTS: OLSLR RMSEs with the JAMDIG and DIGS datasets were between 31 and 4.3 dB, and between 19.5 and 3.9 dB. On the other hand, VBLR RMSEs with JAMDIG and DIGS datasets were between 5.0 and 3.7, and between 4.6 and 3.6 dB. There was statistically significant difference between VBLR and OLSLR for both datasets at every series (VF2–4 to VF2–10) (P < 0.01 for all tests). However, there was no statistically significant difference in VBLR RMSEs between JAMDIG and DIGS datasets at any series of VFs (VF2–2 to VF2–10) (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: VBLR outperformed OLSLR to predict future VF progression, and the VBLR has a potential to be a helpful tool at clinical settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5886131
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58861312018-04-06 Validating Variational Bayes Linear Regression Method With Multi-Central Datasets Murata, Hiroshi Zangwill, Linda M. Fujino, Yuri Matsuura, Masato Miki, Atsuya Hirasawa, Kazunori Tanito, Masaki Mizoue, Shiro Mori, Kazuhiko Suzuki, Katsuyoshi Yamashita, Takehiro Kashiwagi, Kenji Shoji, Nobuyuki Asaoka, Ryo Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Glaucoma PURPOSE: To validate the prediction accuracy of variational Bayes linear regression (VBLR) with two datasets external to the training dataset. METHOD: The training dataset consisted of 7268 eyes of 4278 subjects from the University of Tokyo Hospital. The Japanese Archive of Multicentral Databases in Glaucoma (JAMDIG) dataset consisted of 271 eyes of 177 patients, and the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study (DIGS) dataset includes 248 eyes of 173 patients, which were used for validation. Prediction accuracy was compared between the VBLR and ordinary least squared linear regression (OLSLR). First, OLSLR and VBLR were carried out using total deviation (TD) values at each of the 52 test points from the second to fourth visual fields (VFs) (VF2–4) to 2nd to 10th VF (VF2–10) of each patient in JAMDIG and DIGS datasets, and the TD values of the 11th VF test were predicted every time. The predictive accuracy of each method was compared through the root mean squared error (RMSE) statistic. RESULTS: OLSLR RMSEs with the JAMDIG and DIGS datasets were between 31 and 4.3 dB, and between 19.5 and 3.9 dB. On the other hand, VBLR RMSEs with JAMDIG and DIGS datasets were between 5.0 and 3.7, and between 4.6 and 3.6 dB. There was statistically significant difference between VBLR and OLSLR for both datasets at every series (VF2–4 to VF2–10) (P < 0.01 for all tests). However, there was no statistically significant difference in VBLR RMSEs between JAMDIG and DIGS datasets at any series of VFs (VF2–2 to VF2–10) (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: VBLR outperformed OLSLR to predict future VF progression, and the VBLR has a potential to be a helpful tool at clinical settings. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2018-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5886131/ /pubmed/29677350 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-22907 Text en Copyright 2018 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Glaucoma
Murata, Hiroshi
Zangwill, Linda M.
Fujino, Yuri
Matsuura, Masato
Miki, Atsuya
Hirasawa, Kazunori
Tanito, Masaki
Mizoue, Shiro
Mori, Kazuhiko
Suzuki, Katsuyoshi
Yamashita, Takehiro
Kashiwagi, Kenji
Shoji, Nobuyuki
Asaoka, Ryo
Validating Variational Bayes Linear Regression Method With Multi-Central Datasets
title Validating Variational Bayes Linear Regression Method With Multi-Central Datasets
title_full Validating Variational Bayes Linear Regression Method With Multi-Central Datasets
title_fullStr Validating Variational Bayes Linear Regression Method With Multi-Central Datasets
title_full_unstemmed Validating Variational Bayes Linear Regression Method With Multi-Central Datasets
title_short Validating Variational Bayes Linear Regression Method With Multi-Central Datasets
title_sort validating variational bayes linear regression method with multi-central datasets
topic Glaucoma
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5886131/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29677350
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-22907
work_keys_str_mv AT muratahiroshi validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets
AT zangwilllindam validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets
AT fujinoyuri validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets
AT matsuuramasato validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets
AT mikiatsuya validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets
AT hirasawakazunori validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets
AT tanitomasaki validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets
AT mizoueshiro validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets
AT morikazuhiko validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets
AT suzukikatsuyoshi validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets
AT yamashitatakehiro validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets
AT kashiwagikenji validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets
AT shojinobuyuki validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets
AT asaokaryo validatingvariationalbayeslinearregressionmethodwithmulticentraldatasets