Associations between structure and function are different in healthy and glaucomatous eyes

Fang-I Chu, Iván Marín-Franch, Koosha Ramezani and Lyne Racette

PLOS ONE, 2018, vol. 13, issue 5, 1-14

Abstract: Purpose: To assess if there are differences in the structure-function associations between healthy and glaucomatous eyes. Methods: Structure-function associations were assessed in healthy and glaucomatous eyes in three datasets, globally and in the six sectors of the optic nerve head. Structural parameters included rim area (RA) and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (RNFLT). Functional parameters included unweighted mean of sensitivity thresholds (MS) and unweighted mean of total deviation values (MD), assessed with standard automated perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, or contrast sensitivity perimetry. All structural and functional parameters were expressed as percent of mean normal. SF associations were assessed with correlation analyses (Pearson, Spearman and Kendall). We also assessed the SF associations with linear regression analyses: the generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to adjust for inter-eye correlations and ordinary least squares (OLS) linear models were used when these adjustments were not necessary. We applied Bonferroni corrections to adjust for the impact of multiple comparisons. Results: Overall, none of the Pearson correlations tested in healthy eyes were significant (correlations ranged from -0.17 to 0.37), whereas 77% of the correlations tested in glaucomatous eyes were significant (correlations ranged from 0.01 to 0.79). Similarly, none of the slopes obtained with GEE and OLS were significant in healthy eyes (slopes ranged from -0.30 to 0.87), whereas 82% of the slopes obtained in glaucomatous eyes were significant (slopes ranged from 0.02 to 1.38). Conclusions: Significant associations between structure and function were consistently observed in glaucomatous eyes, but not in healthy eyes. These differences in association should be considered in the design of structure-function models for progression.

Date: 2018
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196814 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 96814&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0196814

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196814

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().