Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

AI to Identify Strain-sensitive Regions of the Optic Nerve Head Linked to Functional Loss in Glaucoma

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read IOP-induced strain in the optic nerve head sharpens AI prediction of glaucoma vision loss.

desk verdict Solid increment with one overstated headline: the arcuate strain ablation is real, but the saliency maps don't isolate strain. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17262 v1 pith:TQGL4SZT submitted 2025-06-09 cs.LG cs.AI

Thanadet Chuangsuwanich , Monisha E. Nongpiur , Fabian A. Braeu , Tin A. Tun , Alexandre Thiery , Shamira Perera , Ching Lin Ho , Martin Buist
show 3 more authors
George Barbastathis Tin Aung Michaël J.A. Girard
This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords glaucomaopticnerveheadbiomechanicseffectivestraindigitalvolumecorrelationgeometricdeeplearningPointNetexplainableAIvisualfieldloss
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that adding intraocular-pressure-induced biomechanical strain of the optic nerve head (ONH) to structural morphology improves AI prediction of specific glaucoma visual field loss patterns, with the clearest gain for superior partial arcuate defects (AUC 0.87 versus 0.83 without strain, p<0.05). It further claims that explainable AI consistently localizes the class-driving evidence to the inferior and inferotemporal neuroretinal rim, where the high-importance region expands as defects progress from nasal step to arcuate to full hemifield loss. If true, this means local tissue deformation, not just tissue shape, carries clinically relevant information about where glaucoma injures vision, and the neuroretinal rim, rather than the lamina cribrosa, emerges as the biomechanically vulnerable site. A sympathetic reader would care because it points toward biomechanics-informed risk assessment and region-specific monitoring of glaucomatous damage.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a pipeline that converts OCT segmentations of the ONH into 3D point clouds, computes IOP-induced effective strain at each point using digital volume correlation, and feeds these point clouds into separate PointNet classifiers for each visual field defect type. Saliency is quantified by averaging gradient magnitudes across spatial, structural, and strain features, and the resulting 3D saliency values are sum-projected onto an en-face BMO-centered grid to define strain-sensitive regions.

What would settle it

Train the same PointNet classifier using only morphological features, generate saliency maps, and compare them with the strain-inclusive maps: if the inferior and inferotemporal rim remains the dominant high-saliency region without any strain input, then the strain-sensitive localization conclusion does not follow from the saliency analysis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that ONH tissue strain enhances prediction of glaucomatous visual field loss patterns beyond morphology alone, and that the neuroretinal rim, rather than the lamina cribrosa, is the most critical region contributing to these model predictions. This is supported by a sensitivity analysis showing significantly higher AUC for superior arcuate defects with strain features included, and by saliency maps that show an arching pattern in the inferior and inferotemporal rim that lengthens with increasing disease severity.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the identified regions are truly strain-sensitive rests on treating gradient magnitudes averaged across spatial, structural, and strain features as a measure that isolates biomechanical strain, even though the PointNet architecture cannot fully disentangle strain from morphology such as tissue thickness.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding effective strain to morphology yields a statistically significant AUC gain for superior arcuate defects, showing biomechanical features have predictive value beyond structure.
  • The inferior and inferotemporal neuroretinal rim is repeatedly identified as the most salient region across all three classification tasks, which suggests a consistent anatomical focus for early axonal injury.
  • The high-saliency arc lengthens as defects progress from nasal step to arcuate to full hemifield loss, implying that more severe damage recruits broader regions of the rim.
  • The comparatively low saliency of the lamina cribrosa indicates that either its biomechanical role is less directly tied to these visual field patterns or that current OCT resolution does not capture the relevant LC features.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the localization claim would be to train the same model without strain features and compare saliency maps: if the inferior rim remains dominant, the maps reflect morphology rather than strain sensitivity.
  • Because the paper uses only effective strain, it cannot distinguish tension from compression or shear; future models including the full strain tensor or stress fields may relocate or refine the key regions.
  • The cross-sectional design leaves open whether strain maps predict concurrent rather than future damage; longitudinal biomechanical testing would be needed to establish a causal or progressive link.
  • The patient-specific saliency maps could in principle be combined with the Garway-Heath map to generate individualized structure-function predictions, but this is an extension the paper does not itself pursue.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a geometric deep learning pipeline (PointNet) that takes 3D optic nerve head (ONH) point clouds, with morphological features and IOP-induced effective strain from digital volume correlation, to classify three patterns of superior visual field loss in 237 glaucoma subjects. The authors report AUCs of 0.77–0.88, and a five-split ablation for the superior arcuate task shows a small but statistically significant improvement when strain features are included (0.87±0.02 vs. 0.83±0.02, p<0.05). Saliency maps are used to identify high-gradient regions, which the paper labels as "strain-sensitive regions," and the authors conclude that the inferior and inferotemporal neuroretinal rim is the most critical region, with the arc of importance expanding across nasal step, arcuate, and hemifield defect groups.

Significance. If the claims are validated, the work would provide a clinically plausible link between acute IOP-induced ONH deformation and region-specific functional loss, and it would point to the neuroretinal rim rather than the lamina cribrosa as a biomechanically vulnerable site. The study has genuine strengths: a well-characterized clinical cohort, direct measurement of IOP-induced strain via DVC, a morphology-only ablation that is not circular, and a spatially resolved analysis of model predictions. However, the main strain-benefit evidence is limited to one of three tasks and rests on a fragile statistical protocol, and the central localization claim is undermined by the mixed-feature saliency computation, which the authors themselves acknowledge cannot separate strain from morphology. The cross-sectional design also does not support the "progressive expansion" language. These issues currently limit the strength of the conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, Explainable AI] The saliency maps are computed as gradient magnitudes averaged across spatial, structural, and strain features, and the manuscript then defines "regions of high gradient" as "strain-sensitive regions." Because the gradient is a mixed-feature quantity, a high value in the inferior rim could reflect tissue-thickness variation, boundary shape, or coordinate-scale effects rather than strain; the authors explicitly acknowledge this in the Discussion ("PointNet has limited ability to disentangle the regional contributions of individual features, such as strain versus tissue thickness, within the saliency map"). Consequently, the second central claim—that the inferior and inferotemporal neuroretinal rim is the key strain-sensitive region—is not supported by the presented evidence. Please provide strain-only attribution maps or per-feature saliency, or restrict the conclusions to "regions important for prediction" rather than "strain-sensitive regions."
  2. [Results, Incorporation of Effective Strains] The claim that "ONH strain improved VF loss prediction beyond morphology alone" is supported only for the superior arcuate task (AUC 0.87±0.02 vs. 0.83±0.02, p<0.05), not for the nasal step or hemifield tasks, yet the abstract and conclusion present it as a general result. The protocol also reports no validation set, hyperparameters inherited from prior work, and final-iteration weights, and the p-value is based on only 62 positive cases across five splits. Please report strain ablations for all three tasks, specify the exact statistical test and dispersion (e.g., paired test, confidence intervals), and qualify the claim to the arcuate pattern unless additional evidence is provided.
  3. [Results, Explainable AI Reveals an Arching Pattern] The study is cross-sectional, but the Results state that the arc "increased in length as the defect progressed from a nasal step to an arcuate pattern and, ultimately, to full hemifield loss," and the Discussion uses "as glaucoma progresses." Because the three defect groups are severity categories, not longitudinal observations, "progressive expansion" and progression-related causal language are not supported by the data. Please replace these with severity-associated language, such as "the arc length was larger in more advanced defect categories."
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Results] The abstract reports peak AUCs of 0.77–0.88, while the Results first report 0.88 for superior partial arcuate defects and later report 0.87±0.02 for the same task; please reconcile these numbers and make clear whether 0.88 is a single-split value or a mean.
  2. [References] References 17 and 38 appear to cite the same paper (Chuangsuwanich et al., "Biomechanics-Function in Glaucoma"); please deduplicate or clarify if they are intended as distinct works.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption states "Red regions in the nerve fiber defect maps denote areas of nerve loss," but the panels appear to show visual field pattern deviation maps; please clarify the anatomical or functional nature of the displayed maps and ensure the color scheme is legible in print.
  4. [Methods, Classification of Visual Field Defects] The text uses "ophthalmo-dynamometry" in the abstract and "ophthalmodynamometer" in the Methods; please standardize the terminology. Also, "primarily gaze" should be "primary gaze."

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The strain-AUC ablation is genuine, but the headline 'strain-sensitive regions' claim is definitional: high-gradient regions in a mixed-feature saliency map are defined as strain-sensitive, then presented as evidence for strain's role.

  1. self definitional [Methods, Explainable AI to Identify Strain-sensitive Regions (final paragraph)]
    "Finally, from the saliency maps, we defined regions of high gradient as strain-sensitive regions – area where local strain values most strongly contribute to the prediction of characteristic visual field loss patterns in glaucoma."

    The saliency map is explicitly computed by averaging 'gradient magnitudes across spatial, structural, and strain features' for each point. High gradient in this mixed map does not isolate strain. By defining 'strain-sensitive regions' as high-gradient regions, the paper's later conclusion that the inferior/inferotemporal rim is 'strain-sensitive' and that 'strain at the rim could play a dominant role' is guaranteed by this definition, not demonstrated by any strain-specific attribution. The paper itself concedes PointNet 'has limited ability to disentangle the regional contributions of individual features, such as strain versus tissue thickness, within the saliency map.' Thus the localization result reduces, by construction, to the chosen definition.

  2. renaming known result [Discussion, fourth paragraph]
    "Yet, the spatial relevance patterns identified by our AI models align well with established structure-function relationships. For instance, they correspond with the Garway-Heath map, which links superior nasal field loss to damage in the inferior rim and associates more extensive visual field defects with broader regions of the optic disc."

    The paper's key localization finding—inferior/inferotemporal rim involvement that expands with defect severity—is a well-established clinical structure-function relationship (Garway-Heath map). Because the saliency map used to generate this pattern is a mixed-feature gradient average, calling the pattern 'strain-sensitive regions' renames a known empirical map rather than deriving a biomechanical sensitivity. The paper uses this correspondence as validation, but the 'strain-sensitive' label imports a causal biomechanical claim that the mixed-feature saliency cannot support; the pattern would be equally consistent with rim morphology alone.

full rationale

The paper's primary quantitative contribution—that adding effective strain improves AUC for superior arcuate detection (0.87 ± 0.02 vs 0.83 ± 0.02, p<0.05)—is a genuine morphology-only ablation performed on held-out test splits. This part is not circular and provides independent evidence that strain features add predictive information. However, the second headline claim, identifying 'strain-sensitive' ONH regions, is partially circular. The methods define 'strain-sensitive regions' as high-gradient regions in a saliency map that averages gradients across spatial, structural, and strain features. Because the map is not strain-specific, any high-gradient region (e.g., driven by rim thickness) qualifies as 'strain-sensitive' by definition. The paper's own limitation statement acknowledges PointNet cannot disentangle strain versus tissue thickness in the saliency map. Furthermore, the identified inferior/inferotemporal rim pattern corresponds directly to the known Garway-Heath structure-function map, so presenting it as a biomechanical discovery renames an established empirical result. The AUC finding survives, but the localization claim reduces to its definition. Overall score 6 reflects this partial circularity: one central sub-claim is definitionally forced, while the principal predictive-accuracy result remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the authors' own previously published pipeline for DVC-based strain measurement (refs 1-6, 17) and on the assumption that the three superior VFD classes form a severity spectrum; the hemifield group has markedly lower mean deviation, so severity is partly encoded in the labels. The interpretability claim adds an ad hoc assumption that gradient saliency over mixed point features localizes strain-specific biomechanical sensitivity, which the authors concede PointNet cannot fully support. No external validation cohort or independent replication is cited; the paper's prior pipeline results are all authored by the same group.

free parameters (4)
  • PointNet hyperparameters = unknown; from ref 17
    Hyperparameters were taken from the authors' prior work (ref 17) with no validation set on this dataset, so their appropriateness for these three classification tasks is unverified; the final training iteration was used for testing.
  • Point cloud subsample size = 3,000 points
    Training randomly sampled 3,000 points from each ONH point cloud as augmentation (Methods).
  • KNN interpolation neighbors = K = 5
    Effective strain values were assigned to each point cloud via K-nearest neighbor interpolation with K = 5 (Methods).
  • Saliency projection grid resolution = 40 x 40 cells over 2 mm x 2 mm
    Saliency was sum-projected onto an en-face 40x40 grid; the observed 'arching pattern' visualization depends on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption IOP-induced effective strain computed by DVC from OCT volumes is a valid biomechanical measure.
    The strain pipeline is carried over from the authors' prior work (refs 1-6, 17) and is not re-validated; posterior LC boundaries were often not visible, so LC strain relies on partial segmentation.
  • domain assumption Superior nasal step, arcuate, and full hemifield defects form a progressive severity spectrum.
    The study is cross-sectional; 'progression' is inferred by comparing separate patient groups, and the hemifield group has a lower mean deviation, so severity is partly encoded in the labels (Results, Table 1).
  • domain assumption Acute IOP elevation to about 35 mmHg represents the biomechanical environment of chronic glaucomatous injury.
    The authors link acute strain to chronic functional loss without longitudinal data and state that confirmatory longitudinal monitoring 'is currently underway' (Discussion).
  • ad hoc to paper Gradient-magnitude saliency averaged over spatial, structural, and strain features localizes the regions that drive classification.
    Saliency defines the 'strain-sensitive regions' of the paper; the authors note PointNet cannot disentangle strain from tissue thickness in these maps (Discussion, limitations).
  • standard math PointNet (ref 23) can learn structure-function relationships from 3,000-point clouds at the given sample sizes.
    Standard geometric deep learning architecture; invoked throughout Methods without re-derivation.
invented entities (1)
  • Strain-sensitive regions (saliency-defined)
    purpose: Interpretability construct used to claim that the inferior and inferotemporal rim are the biomechanical sites driving visual field loss predictions.
    The regions are defined by model output gradients, not by any independent measurement of strain sensitivity; no external validation (histology, longitudinal outcomes, or independent biomechanical measurement) is provided, and the authors note possible confounding by tissue-thickness features.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI to Identify Strain-sensitive Regions of the Optic Nerve Head Linked to Functional Loss in Glaucoma." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TQGL4SZT

@misc{pith2026250617262,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI to Identify Strain-sensitive Regions of the Optic Nerve Head Linked to Functional Loss in Glaucoma},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TQGL4SZT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17262}
}
read the original abstract

Objective: (1) To assess whether ONH biomechanics improves prediction of three progressive visual field loss patterns in glaucoma; (2) to use explainable AI to identify strain-sensitive ONH regions contributing to these predictions. Methods: We recruited 237 glaucoma subjects. The ONH of one eye was imaged under two conditions: (1) primary gaze and (2) primary gaze with IOP elevated to ~35 mmHg via ophthalmo-dynamometry. Glaucoma experts classified the subjects into four categories based on the presence of specific visual field defects: (1) superior nasal step (N=26), (2) superior partial arcuate (N=62), (3) full superior hemifield defect (N=25), and (4) other/non-specific defects (N=124). Automatic ONH tissue segmentation and digital volume correlation were used to compute IOP-induced neural tissue and lamina cribrosa (LC) strains. Biomechanical and structural features were input to a Geometric Deep Learning model. Three classification tasks were performed to detect: (1) superior nasal step, (2) superior partial arcuate, (3) full superior hemifield defect. For each task, the data were split into 80% training and 20% testing sets. Area under the curve (AUC) was used to assess performance. Explainable AI techniques were employed to highlight the ONH regions most critical to each classification. Results: Models achieved high AUCs of 0.77-0.88, showing that ONH strain improved VF loss prediction beyond morphology alone. The inferior and inferotemporal rim were identified as key strain-sensitive regions, contributing most to visual field loss prediction and showing progressive expansion with increasing disease severity. Conclusion and Relevance: ONH strain enhances prediction of glaucomatous VF loss patterns. Neuroretinal rim, rather than the LC, was the most critical region contributing to model predictions.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adduction induces large optic nerve head deformations in subjects with normal-tension glaucoma

    Chuangsuwanich T , Tun TA, Braeu FA, et al. Adduction induces large optic nerve head deformations in subjects with normal-tension glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    How Myopia and Glaucoma Influence the Biomechanical Susceptibility of the Optic Nerve Head

    Chuangsuwanich T , Tun T , Braeu F, et al. How Myopia and Glaucoma Influence the Biomechanical Susceptibility of the Optic Nerve Head. bioRxiv. 2022:2022.12. 19.520997

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Differing Associations between Optic Nerve Head Strains and Visual Field Loss in Normal-and High-Tension Glaucoma Subjects

    Chuangsuwanich T , Tun TA, Braeu FA, et al. Differing Associations between Optic Nerve Head Strains and Visual Field Loss in Normal-and High-Tension Glaucoma Subjects. Ophthalmology. 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Association of functional loss with the biomechanical response of the optic nerve head to acute transient intraocular pressure elevations

    Tun TA, Atalay E, Baskaran M, et al. Association of functional loss with the biomechanical response of the optic nerve head to acute transient intraocular pressure elevations. JAMA ophthalmology. 2018;136(2):184-192

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Biomechanical changes in the sclera of monkey eyes exposed to chronic IOP elevations

    Girard MJ, Suh J-KF, Bottlang M, Burgoyne CF, Downs JC. Biomechanical changes in the sclera of monkey eyes exposed to chronic IOP elevations. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(8):5656-5669

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    In Vivo 3-Dimensional Strain Mapping of the Optic Nerve Head Following Intraocular Pressure Lowering by Trabeculectomy

    Girard MJ, Beotra MR, Chin KS, et al. In Vivo 3-Dimensional Strain Mapping of the Optic Nerve Head Following Intraocular Pressure Lowering by Trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology. 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    A noninvasive clinical method to measure in vivo mechanical strains of the lamina cribrosa by optical coherence tomography

    Hannay V, Czerpak C, Quigley HA, Nguyen TD. A noninvasive clinical method to measure in vivo mechanical strains of the lamina cribrosa by optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology Science. 2024:100473

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Long-term Remodeling Response in the Lamina Cribrosa Years after Intraocular Pressure Lowering by Suturelysis after Trabeculectomy

    Czerpak CA, Quigley HA, Nguyen TD. Long-term Remodeling Response in the Lamina Cribrosa Years after Intraocular Pressure Lowering by Suturelysis after Trabeculectomy. Ophthalmology Glaucoma. 2024;7(3):298-307

    work page 2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Eye-specific IOP-induced displacements and deformations of human lamina cribrosa

    Sigal IA, Grimm JL, Jan N-J, Reid K, Minckler DS, Brown DJ. Eye-specific IOP-induced displacements and deformations of human lamina cribrosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(1):1-15

    2014

  2. [10]

    Finite Element Modeling of Optic Nerve Head Biomechanics

    Sigal IA, Flanagan JG, Tertinegg I, Ethier CR. Finite Element Modeling of Optic Nerve Head Biomechanics. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45(12):4378-4387. doi:10.1167/iovs.04- 0133

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    Age-related changes in the non-linear mechanical strain response of human peripapillary sclera

    Fazio MA, Grytz R, Morris JS, Bruno L, Girkin CA, Downs JC. Age-related changes in the non-linear mechanical strain response of human peripapillary sclera. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2013:V01BT54A004

    2013

  4. [12]

    Racial differences in human scleral material properties

    Grytz R, Fazio M, Libertiaux V, et al. Racial differences in human scleral material properties. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(15):79-79

    2013

  5. [13]

    The cell and molecular biology of glaucoma: mechanisms of retinal ganglion cell death

    Nickells RW. The cell and molecular biology of glaucoma: mechanisms of retinal ganglion cell death. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(5):2476-2481

    2012

  6. [14]

    cell death

    Osborne NN. Pathogenesis of ganglion “cell death” in glaucoma and neuroprotection: focus on ganglion cell axonal mitochondria. Prog Brain Res. 2008;173:339-352

    2008

  7. [15]

    Geometric deep learning: Grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges

    Bronstein MM, Bruna J, Cohen T , Veličković P . Geometric deep learning: Grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges. arXiv preprint arXiv:210413478. 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI

    Arrieta AB, Díaz-Rodríguez N, Del Ser J, et al. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information fusion. 2020;58:82-115

    2020

  9. [17]

    Biomechanics-Function in Glaucoma: Improved Visual Field Predictions from IOP-Induced Neural Strains

    Chuangsuwanich T , Nongpiur ME, Braeu FA, et al. Biomechanics-Function in Glaucoma: Improved Visual Field Predictions from IOP-Induced Neural Strains. Am J Ophthalmol. 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Pattern of visual field loss in primary angle- closure glaucoma across different severity levels

    Atalay E, Nongpiur ME, Yap SC, et al. Pattern of visual field loss in primary angle- closure glaucoma across different severity levels. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(9):1957-1964

    2016

  11. [19]

    Classification of visual field abnormalities in the ocular hypertension treatment study

    Keltner JL, Johnson CA, Cello KE, et al. Classification of visual field abnormalities in the ocular hypertension treatment study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(5):643-650

    2003

  12. [20]

    Prevalence and nature of early glaucomatous defects in the central 10 of the visual field

    Traynis I, De Moraes CG, Raza AS, Liebmann JM, Ritch R, Hood DC. Prevalence and nature of early glaucomatous defects in the central 10 of the visual field. JAMA ophthalmology. 2014;132(3):291-297

    2014

  13. [21]

    How myopia and glaucoma influence the biomechanical susceptibility of the optic nerve head

    Chuangsuwanich T , Tun TA, Braeu FA, et al. How myopia and glaucoma influence the biomechanical susceptibility of the optic nerve head. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2023;64(11):12-12

    2023

  14. [22]

    AI-based clinical assessment of optic nerve head robustness superseding biomechanical testing

    Braeu FA, Chuangsuwanich T , Tun TA, et al. AI-based clinical assessment of optic nerve head robustness superseding biomechanical testing. Br J Ophthalmol. 2024;108(2):223-231

    2024

  15. [23]

    Three-dimensional structural phenotype of the optic nerve head as a function of glaucoma severity

    Braeu FA, Chuangsuwanich T , Tun TA, et al. Three-dimensional structural phenotype of the optic nerve head as a function of glaucoma severity. JAMA ophthalmology. 2023;141(9):882-889

    2023

  16. [24]

    Medical application of geometric deep learning for the diagnosis of glaucoma

    Thiéry AH, Braeu F, Tun TA, Aung T , Girard MJ. Medical application of geometric deep learning for the diagnosis of glaucoma. Translational Vision Science & Technology. 2023;12(2):23-23

    2023

  17. [25]

    Geometric deep learning to identify the critical 3D structural features of the optic nerve head for glaucoma diagnosis

    Braeu FA, Thiéry AH, Tun TA, et al. Geometric deep learning to identify the critical 3D structural features of the optic nerve head for glaucoma diagnosis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2023;250:38-48

    2023

  18. [26]

    Intraocular asymmetry of visual field defects in primary angle-closure glaucoma, high-tension glaucoma, and normal-tension glaucoma in a Chinese population

    Jiang J, Ye C, Zhang C, et al. Intraocular asymmetry of visual field defects in primary angle-closure glaucoma, high-tension glaucoma, and normal-tension glaucoma in a Chinese population. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):11674

    2021

  19. [27]

    Initial arcuate defects within the central 10 degrees in glaucoma

    Hood DC, Raza AS, de Moraes CGV, et al. Initial arcuate defects within the central 10 degrees in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(2):940-946

    2011

  20. [28]

    Altering the way the optic nerve head responds to intraocular pressure—a potential approach to glaucoma therapy

    Strouthidis NG, Girard MJ. Altering the way the optic nerve head responds to intraocular pressure—a potential approach to glaucoma therapy. Current opinion in pharmacology. 2013;13(1):83-89

    2013

  21. [29]

    Retinal ganglion cell apoptosis in glaucoma is related to intraocular pressure and IOP-induced effects on extracellular matrix

    Guo L, Moss SE, Alexander RA, Ali RR, Fitzke FW, Cordeiro MF. Retinal ganglion cell apoptosis in glaucoma is related to intraocular pressure and IOP-induced effects on extracellular matrix. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(1):175-182

    2005

  22. [30]

    Factors Influencing Lamina Cribrosa Microcapillary Hemodynamics and Oxygen Concentrations

    Chuangsuwanich T , Birgersson KE, Thiery A, Thakku SG, Leo HL, Girard MJ. Factors Influencing Lamina Cribrosa Microcapillary Hemodynamics and Oxygen Concentrations. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(14):6167-6179

    2016

  23. [31]

    Morphometric, Hemodynamic, and Biomechanical Factors Influencing Blood Flow and Oxygen Concentration in the Human Lamina Cribrosa

    Chuangsuwanich T , Hung PT , Wang X, et al. Morphometric, Hemodynamic, and Biomechanical Factors Influencing Blood Flow and Oxygen Concentration in the Human Lamina Cribrosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2020;61(4):3-3

    2020

  24. [32]

    Effects of raised intraocular pressure on retinal, prelaminar, laminar, and retrolaminar optic nerve blood flow in monkeys

    Geijer C, Bill A. Effects of raised intraocular pressure on retinal, prelaminar, laminar, and retrolaminar optic nerve blood flow in monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1979;18(10):1030-1042

    1979

  25. [33]

    Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes

    Garway-Heath DF, Poinoosawmy D, Fitzke FW, Hitchings RA. Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(10):1809-1815

    2000

  26. [34]

    Changes in the anterior lamina cribrosa morphology with glaucoma severity

    Tan NY , Tham Y-C, Thakku SG, et al. Changes in the anterior lamina cribrosa morphology with glaucoma severity. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):6612

    2019

  27. [35]

    Glaucomatous cupping of the lamina cribrosa: a review of the evidence for active progressive remodeling as a mechanism

    Downs JC, Roberts MD, Sigal IA. Glaucomatous cupping of the lamina cribrosa: a review of the evidence for active progressive remodeling as a mechanism. Exp Eye Res. 2011;93(2):133-140

    2011

  28. [36]

    Clinical assessment of lamina cribrosa curvature in eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma

    Kim YW, Jeoung JW, Kim DW, et al. Clinical assessment of lamina cribrosa curvature in eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0150260

    2016

  29. [37]

    Correlation between local stress and strain and lamina cribrosa connective tissue volume fraction in normal monkey eyes

    Roberts MD, Liang Y , Sigal IA, et al. Correlation between local stress and strain and lamina cribrosa connective tissue volume fraction in normal monkey eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(1):295-307

    2010

  30. [38]

    Biomechanics-Function in Glaucoma: Improved Visual Field Predictions from IOP-Induced Neural Strains

    Chuangsuwanich T , Nongpiur ME, Braeu FA, et al. Biomechanics-Function in Glaucoma: Improved Visual Field Predictions from IOP-Induced Neural Strains. Am J Ophthalmol. 2025;271:250-258

    2025

  31. [39]

    Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space

    Qi CR, Yi L, Su H, Guibas LJ. Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2017;30

    2017

  32. [40]

    Recent advances in OCT imaging of the lamina cribrosa

    Sigal IA, Wang B, Strouthidis NG, Akagi T , Girard MJ. Recent advances in OCT imaging of the lamina cribrosa. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(Suppl 2):ii34-ii39

    2014

  33. [41]

    Neuro-ophthalmology of aging

    Matjucha IC, Katz B. Neuro-ophthalmology of aging. Clinical neurology of aging. 1994;2:421-447

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.