May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Diagnostic Accuracy of HRT 3 Moorfields Regression Analysis and Glaucoma Probability Score
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • R.D. Fechtner
    Department of Ophthalmology, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ
  • M. Fingeret
    Department of Optometry, Department of Vetrans Affairs, New York Harbor Health Care System, Brooklyn, NY
  • A.S. Khouri
    Department of Ophthalmology, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ
  • M.J. Sinai
    Heidelberg Engineering, Vista, CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  R.D. Fechtner, Carl Zeiss Meditec, C; M. Fingeret, Carl Zeiss Meditec, C; A.S. Khouri, None; M.J. Sinai, Heidelberg Engineering, E.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Research to Prevent Blindness; Glaucoma Research & Education Foundation
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 3631. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      R.D. Fechtner, M. Fingeret, A.S. Khouri, M.J. Sinai; Diagnostic Accuracy of HRT 3 Moorfields Regression Analysis and Glaucoma Probability Score . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):3631.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the HRT 3 Moorfields Regression Analysis (MRA) and a new machine learning classifier, the Glaucoma Probability Score (GPS).


Normal and glaucoma patients were enrolled from two clinical sites, the NY VA in St. Alban’s NY and New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ. All subjects underwent a full eye examination, standard achromatic perimetry (SITA– standard 24–2) and confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph HRT 2 hardware running HRT 2 or HRT 3 software). Glaucoma was defined by the existence of reproducible glaucomatous visual field defect. Normal subjects had normal visual fields and IOP <24 mm Hg). All images were exported to the HRT3 software for analysis. The contour line was drawn on each image by a glaucoma specialist. GPS analysis does not require a contour line. Sensitivity and specificity values were determined for the MRA, the GPS, and two additional discriminant function analyses available in software (FSM and RB analyses). ROC analysis was performed on stereometric and GPS parameters but could not be performed on MRA because it exports classifiers and not continuous variables.


73 Normal eyes and 81 glaucoma eyes were enrolled. Sensitivity, specificity and area under ROC curve are reported in the table below.


The new machine learning classifier in the HRT 3, the GPS, performs similarly to the MRA. Both of these measures provided good sensitivity and specificity. GPS does not require the operator to draw a contour line, thus eliminating a potential source of error.  

Keywords: optic disc • imaging/image analysis: clinical 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.