TY - JOUR T1 - Maximum likelihood perimetric progression analysis: Using raw (trial-by-trial) response data to estimate progression more robustly JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.02.05.21251210 SP - 2021.02.05.21251210 AU - Pete R. Jones Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/08/2021.02.05.21251210.abstract N2 - Purpose To describe and demonstrate a more efficient (Maximum Likelihood) method for quantifying visual field progression.Design Monte Carlo simulation.Methods Trial-by-trial response data were simulated using a stochastic psychometric model (a “simulated observer”). Simulated Differential Light Sensitivity (DLS) decreased between tests to mimic long-term visual field progression. Progression slopes were fitted, either by fitting a regression slope to independent DLS estimates from each test (conventional method), or by fitting all the raw data combined in a single model (proposed maximum likelihood method).Results The proposed ML method seldom performed worse than a conventional, regression-based approach, and often performed better. For an idealized observer with a lapse (false negative) rate of 0 and a guess (false positive) rate of 0, both methods were equally precise. However, as lapse rate increased, the ML method exhibited less random measurement error. For small numbers of trials this increase in precision translated to a negative progression slope being detected with 95% confidence at least one year/assessment sooner. The only time the ML method was observed to perform worse was when very few trials (N = 4) were combined with very high lapse rates (λ = 0.3): an unlikely but not inconceivable scenario.Conclusions Combining raw, trial-by-trial response data in a single ML model can provide a more robust estimate of visual field progression than conventional methods (e.g., linear regression), at no additional cost to the patient or clinician (i.e., no additional trials).Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding to declareAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesSource code provided as Supplemental Material ER -