Kaplan, Tyler M.

Background This study aimed to provide methodology to create a facial contour-informed normative 60-4 visual field and to apply the reference field to a glaucoma cohort to derive facial contour-informed 60-4 global indices. Methods Participant recruitment was completed at a tertiary medical centre. 60 eyes from 30 participants with no ocular pathology by clinical exam or optical coherence tomography were recruited for the healthy cohort. For the glaucoma cohort, 86 eyes from 43 patients diagnosed with glaucoma by clinical exam were recruited, with 30-2 visual field mean deviation used to stratify glaucoma severity. Results The median (range) age of the healthy participants was 33 (24–61) years old. A facial contour-informed 60-4 visual field reference field was developed. 43 glaucoma patients were recruited with a resulting median (range) age of 65 (30–84). Three algorithms compensating for facial contour were used for the derivation of 60-4 mean deviation and pattern SD. All mean deviation algorithms correlated with 30-2 mean deviation severity (ρ≤−0.62, p<0.0001) and retinal nerve fibre layer thickness (ρ≥0.36, p<0.05). For pattern SD, consideration of inferior nasal defects allowed correlation with both 30-2 mean deviation severity (ρ≥0.49, p<0.001) and retinal nerve fibre layer thickness (ρ≤−0.47, p<0.01). Conclusion This study provides methodology for deriving a facial contour-informed 60-4 reference field and illustrates the feasibility of applying facial contour information to refine global indices of the 60-4 visual field. Obtained metrics compensated for facial contour and correlated with functional and structural disease metrics.

Précis: Using a CNN-enhanced platform, 60-4 visual fields identified peripheral glaucomatous defects missed by central testing in mild cases; facial contour correction showed these defects occurred exclusively outside the temporal visual field. Purpose: To develop a methodology to separate facial contour-induced visual field defects from defects related to glaucoma in patients with peripheral field defects. Methods: Ninety-seven eyes from 50 patients previously diagnosed with glaucoma were enrolled in the study. Thirty-one (62%) participants were male, and 86% were white. The study involved patients with glaucoma who underwent visual field testing using standard automated perimetry, including 10-2, 24-2, 30-2, and 60-4 visual fields. A convolutional neural network (CNN)-enhanced platform, previously developed to identify facial contour-dependent defects in healthy subjects, was used to analyze the visual field data. Patients: The study included 97 eyes from 50 patients with glaucoma, with the majority having primary open angle glaucoma. Results: In 90 out of 97 eyes, there were 60-4 visual field defects. However, 20 (22%) of these eyes did not have glaucomatous defects on the 10-2 or 30-2 visual fields. All patients with 60-4 defects in the absence of more central defects had mild glaucoma, and these eyes comprised 38% of the mild glaucoma group. 60-4 visual field increased the sensitivity of identifying glaucoma in mild disease. Without facial contour, the 60-4 visual field mean threshold summation was 1099.6±346.6 dB, and decreased to 1057±331 dB when accounting for facial contour, which affected 8.03%±4.02% of test points. Facial contour-dependent visual field defects were exclusively found outside the temporal visual field. Conclusion: The study demonstrated the potential utility of 60-4 visual fields for identifying early functional glaucomatous changes that may not be detected by more central visual field tests (10-2 or 30-2). It may be important to consider peripheral visual field defects, which can be affected by facial contour, in the diagnosis and monitoring of glaucoma, particularly in mild cases.

ImportanceSpecialized ophthalmology terminology limits comprehension for nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals, hindering interdisciplinary communication and patient care. The clinical implementation of large language models (LLMs) into practice has to date been relatively unexplored.ObjectiveTo evaluate LLM–generated plain language summaries (PLSs) integrated into standard ophthalmology notes (SONs) in improving diagnostic understanding, satisfaction, and clarity.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRandomized quality improvement study conducted from February 1, 2024, to May 31, 2024, including data from inpatient and outpatient encounters in a single tertiary academic center. Participants were nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals and ophthalmologists. The single inclusion criterion was any encounter note generated by an ophthalmologist during the study dates. Exclusion criteria were (1) lack of established nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals for outpatient encounters and (2) procedure-only patient encounters.InterventionAddition of LLM-generated plain language summaries to ophthalmology notes.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was survey responses from nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals assessing understanding, satisfaction, and clarity of ophthalmology notes. Secondary outcomes were survey responses from ophthalmologists evaluating PLS in terms of clinical workflow and accuracy, objective measures of semantic quality, and safety analysis.ResultsA total of 362 (85%) nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals (33.0% response rate) preferred the PLS to SON. Demographic data on age, race and ethnicity, and sex were not collected. Nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals reported enhanced diagnostic understanding (percentage point increase, 9.0; 95% CI, 0.3-18.2; P = .01), increased note detail satisfaction (percentage point increase, 21.5; 95% CI, 11.4-31.5; P &amp;lt; .001), and improved explanation clarity (percentage point increase, 23.0; 95% CI, 12.0-33.1; P &amp;lt; .001) for notes containing a PLS. The addition of a PLS was associated with reduced comprehension gaps between clinicians who were comfortable and uncomfortable with ophthalmology terminology (from 26.1% [95% CI, 13.7%-38.6%; P &amp;lt; .001] to 14.4% [95% CI, 4.3%-24.6%; P &amp;gt; .06]). PLS semantic analysis found high meaning preservation (bidirectional encoder representations from transformers score mean F1 score: 0.85) with greater readability than SONs (Flesch Reading Ease: 51.8 vs 43.6; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 10.7 vs 11.9). Ophthalmologists (n = 489; 84% response rate) reported high PLS accuracy (90% [320 of 355] a great deal) with minimal review time burden (94.9% [464 of 489] ≤1 minute). PLS error rate on ophthalmologist review was 26% (126 of 489). A total of 83.9% (104 of 126) of errors were deemed low risk for harm and none had a risk of severe harm or death.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, use of LLM-generated PLSs was associated with enhanced comprehension and satisfaction among nonophthalmology clinicians and professionals, which might aid interdisciplinary communication. Careful implementation and safety monitoring are recommended for clinical integration given the persistence of errors despite physician review.

Précis: When comparing patients on systemic immunosuppressive therapy to those without, there was no difference in intraocular pressure (IOP) early after SLT; however, at 1 year following SLT, IOP was higher in the immunosuppression group compared with controls. Purpose: To determine whether patients taking systemic immunosuppressive medications have a different IOP-lowering response to selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) compared with a control group of patients. Methods: All patients who underwent SLT at Mayo Clinic 2017–2021 were identified. Patients on systemic immunosuppressive medications at the time of SLT were compared with control patients not receiving systemic immunosuppressive medications. The primary endpoints of this study were the percentage IOP reduction at 1 to 2, 3 to 6, and 12 months. Additional analyses included the percentage of patients who did not require additional therapy at each time point. Results: There were 108 eyes of 72 patients that underwent SLT in the immunosuppressed group and 1997 eyes of 1417 patients in the control group. There was no significant difference in age-adjusted change in IOP between groups at the first postoperative visit 1 to 2 months following SLT (−18.8±20.7% vs. −16.0±16.5%, P=0.256) or 3–6 months following SLT (−15.2±21.6% vs. −18.3±23.2%, P=0.062). However, at 12 months following SLT, the IOP reduction in the immunosuppressive therapy group was significantly less compared with the control group (−15.1±21.2% vs. −20.3±22.9%, P=0.045). There was no difference between groups in the number of additional treatments during the study intervals. Conclusion: Patients in the systemic immunosuppressive therapy group showed equivalent early IOP-lowering after SLT compared with a control group, but the treatment response was diminished at 1 year. Further studies investigating IOP regulation after SLT in immunosuppressed patients are needed.

A 68-year-old man with a history of keratoconus was referred for evaluation of a choroidal lesion in his left eye. Fundus autofluorescence demonstrated hyperautofluorescence in a leopard-spotting pattern. What would you do next?