title: The accuracy and clinical application of predictive models for primary open-angle glaucoma in ocular hypertensive individuals.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This report compares the accuracy of 3 prediction models for the development of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). The models differ primarily in their handling of these eye-specific variables: intraocular pressure (IOP), central corneal thickness (CCT), vertical cup-to-disc ratio (VCD), and visual field pattern standard deviation (PSD). The "means" model includes age and the means of right and left eyes; the "means plus asymmetry" model includes age, the means of right and left eyes as well as the absolute difference between eyes for eye-specific variables; and the "worse" eye model includes age and values from the eye at higher risk for developing POAG.
  
  
  METHODS
  This report uses data from the observation group of the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS) and the placebo group of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study (EGPS) who have complete data on both eyes at baseline. Performance of the prediction models is assessed using the c-statistic, calibration chi-square, and Pearson correlation coefficient.
  
  
  METHODS
  The OHTS observation group (n = 717; 6.7 years median follow-up) and the EGPS placebo group (n = 324; 4.9 years median follow-up).
  
  
  METHODS
  Baseline data included demographic characteristics, medical history, ocular examination, visual fields, and optic disc photographs.
  
  
  METHODS
  Development of reproducible visual field abnormality or optic disc deterioration as determined by masked readers and attributed to POAG by a masked end point committee.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Baseline factors that were statistically significant in all predictive models were age, IOP, CCT, VCD, and PSD. Also, statistically significant were baseline asymmetry in IOP and asymmetry in VCD. The c-statistics for the "means" model, "means plus asymmetry" model, and "worse" eye model were 0.74, 0.77, and 0.75, respectively. The calibration chi-square values were 7.32, 11.19, and 1.81, respectively. Correlation coefficients between risk estimates calculated by different models ranged from 0.94 to 0.98.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The high agreement between the risk estimates from 3 different predictive models for the development of POAG suggests little difference in their statistical or clinical performance. The predictive model that uses the means of both eyes for eye-specific variables is the simplest to use and the most robust to measurement variability and error.
mesh_terms: D003315:Cornea / Q000473:pathology; D005902:Glaucoma, Open-Angle / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology*; D006801:Humans; D007429:Intraocular Pressure; D008875:Middle Aged; D008954:Models, Biological; D009798:Ocular Hypertension / Q000150:complications* / Q000175:diagnosis; D009898:Optic Disk / Q000473:pathology*; D009901:Optic Nerve Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology*; D010781:Photography; D016016:Proportional Hazards Models; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012307:Risk Factors; D014065:Tonometry, Ocular; D014786:Vision Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology*; D014794:Visual Fields
references.citation: J Glaucoma. 2000 Feb;9(1):10-9
references.pmid: 10708226
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 2007 Jan;114(1):10-9
references.pmid: 17095090
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Jun;120(6):701-13; discussion 829-30
references.pmid: 12049574
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Jun;120(6):714-20; discussion 829-30
references.pmid: 12049575
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 2002 Sep;109(9):1612-21
references.pmid: 12208707
references.citation: Eye (Lond). 2003 Aug;17(6):747-53
references.pmid: 12928689
references.citation: Can J Ophthalmol. 2004 Apr;39(3):240-4
references.pmid: 15180140
references.citation: Br J Ophthalmol. 1980 Nov;64(11):858-62
references.pmid: 7426557
references.citation: JAMA. 1982 May 14;247(18):2543-6
references.pmid: 7069920
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 1988 Mar;95(3):350-6
references.pmid: 3174002
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 1989 Apr;107(4):526-9
references.pmid: 2705920
references.citation: Eye (Lond). 1991;5 ( Pt 6):674-7
references.pmid: 1800165
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 1992 Feb;99(2):215-21
references.pmid: 1553210
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 1994 May;112(5):644-9
references.pmid: 8185522
references.citation: Am J Ophthalmol. 1995 Apr;119(4):415-21
references.pmid: 7709966
references.citation: Am J Ophthalmol. 1996 May;121(5):502-10
references.pmid: 8610793
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999 Apr;40(5):849-57
references.pmid: 10102281
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 1999 May;117(5):573-83
references.pmid: 10326953
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 2005 Mar;112(3):366-75
references.pmid: 15745761
references.citation: J Glaucoma. 2005 Oct;14(5):358-63
references.pmid: 16148583
references.citation: J Glaucoma. 2005 Oct;14(5):375-83
references.pmid: 16148586
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 2005 Oct;123(10):1351-60
references.pmid: 16219726
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Sep;47(9):3896-903
references.pmid: 16936102
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 2007 Jan;114(1):3-9
references.pmid: 17070596
references.citation: JAMA. 2001 Jul 11;286(2):180-7
references.pmid: 11448281