Evaluates predictive accuracy of visual field loss from OCT in glaucoma, highlighting fairness in outcomes.
PurposeStandard automated perimetry is the clinical standard for measuring visual field (VF) loss in glaucoma, but it is subjective, time-consuming, and variable across patient visits. In contrast, optical coherence tomography (OCT) provides fast and reproducible structural measurements, creating an opportunity to estimate functional visual field loss directly from imaging. We developed and evaluated a fairness-aware volumetric deep learning framework that integrates an adaptive fairness feedback (AFF) mechanism with three-dimensional (3D) OCT modeling to jointly improve predictive accuracy and demographic equity for 52-point visual field prediction.ApproachUsing 3300 paired OCT-VF samples from the Harvard-GF dataset with a patient-level split, we trained a 3D ResNet-18 model incorporating demographic embeddings and an AFF mechanism that dynamically adjusts learning rates based on training subgroup error disparities. Model selection was performed using an internal validation subset of 300 samples. Performance was evaluated using mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), R2, equity-scaled metrics, subgroup disparity analysis, pointwise spatial evaluation, and bootstrap resampling.ResultsThe fairness-aware model with demographic embeddings and AFF achieved RMSE 5.21 dB, MAE 3.32 dB, and R2 0.56 on the held-out test set. Compared with a 3D baseline without demographic embedding or AFF, the full model reduced worst-group MAE from 3.90 to 3.53 dB and MAE disparity from 0.54 to 0.34 dB across racial subgroups, corresponding to a 37% reduction in racial MAE disparity while simultaneously improving overall accuracy.ConclusionsFairness-aware volumetric modeling with AFF improved OCT-based visual field prediction accuracy and reduced racial performance disparities. Ethnicity-based results should be interpreted cautiously because the Hispanic subgroup was small.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: