Objective perimetry and diabetic retinopathy progression: a 10-year follow-up study

Purpose: We investigated 10-year retinal function changes in persons with type 2 diabetes (PWT2D) using the objectiveFIELD Analyser (OFA) to measure per-region sensitivity and response delay. We also examined which baseline measures predicted diabetic retinopathy (DR) progression.

Methods: Participants underwent a comprehensive anterior and posterior segment examination at both visits. Participants were examined by four OFA test methods differing in visual field eccentricity and test duration, each producing per-region sensitivities and response delays. DR severity was graded using Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scores. A generalized linear mixed-effects logistic regression model identified predictors of DR progression over 10 years.

Results: At the 10-year follow-up, 16 PWT2D (11 men, mean age 67.3 ± 11.9 years) were reexamined and more than half (10 participants) exhibited DR progression by at least one ETDRS severity level. Average total deviations of the OFA30 test showed progressive sensitivity loss, particularly in peripheral and nasal regions, whereas response delays demonstrated radially symmetric defects for both OFA30 and OFA15. Logistic regression revealed that regional reduced sensitivity and prolonged delays were significantly associated with higher odds of DR progression, alongside clinical factors such as blood glucose, diabetes duration, biothesiometry score, and baseline DR severity. For OFA30, an initial sensitivity loss of 10 dB in the nasal field produced odds of progression of 1.74× (SE 1.50× and 2.03×, p<0.001). Initial central field delays of 10 ms increased odds by 1.12× (SE 1.08× and 1.15×, p<0.001). Linear models further confirmed that DR severity was significantly associated with changes in OFA sensitivity and response delay.

Conclusion: The OFA may provide a rapid and convenient method for monitoring and predicting DR progression. By assessing changes in retinal function, OFA shows potential as a valuable tool for tracking disease progression and may offer greater sensitivity for detecting functional changes over time.

Introduction

Some of the diagnostic techniques that may be used to diagnose classical vascular diabetic retinopathy (DR) include direct and indirect ophthalmoscopy, fundus photography, optic coherence tomography (OCT), and optic coherence tomography-angiography (1). It is becoming clear that structural and functional changes can precede classical retinopathy in diabetic retinal disease (DRD) (2, 3). When measured in terms of diagnostic power, perhaps the best method is a new form of objective perimetry, the objectiveFIELD Analyser^® (OFA^®) (2). A novel feature of the OFA is that it reports both: sensitivity changes, and changes in response delay at every visual field region (4–7). OFA also reports on abnormally low and high sensitivity, and faster and slower than normal delays. The transient yellow OFA stimuli ensure it is accessing cortically driven responses (8–10). Studies using standard automated perimetry (SAP) have reported higher than normal mean defects in early-stage DRD (11). Higher than normal per-region sensitivities (hypersensitivity) have also been reported in early glaucoma for flickered SAP stimuli (12). In neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), OFA peripheral-macular hypersensitivity predicts good responses to initial antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment (13) and even the need for treatment (14). AMD severities are well correlated with variability in two-dimensional macular pigment optical density (MPOD). The correlation between MPOD and OFA sensitivities and delays differed with severity stage, indicating that they convey different information about disease progression. Two cross-sectional OFA studies of early DRD suggested that hypersensitivity and short delays were associated with fewer years of disease, whereas later-stage disease was associated with lower sensitivity and long delays (5, 7). Overall, the relative independence of OFA sensitivity and delay measurements may suggest they are measuring different aspects of ocular disease.

Support for this idea comes from several OFA longitudinal studies, where progression of sensitives and delays can be quite independent in time and space. This has been reported in glaucoma over 5 years (15) and multiple sclerosis over 10 years (16). In a 15-month study of exudative AMD patients on prn anti-VEGF management, the need for treatment was differentially predicted by changes in peripheral macular delays and sensitivities (14). A 27-month study of diabetic macular oedema showed that changes in per-region delays were the best predictor of progression or recovery of diabetic macular oedema, whereas matrix perimetry provided no information on progression. Here, we reexamine a group of persons with DRD who were tested with two different OFA tests 10 years earlier. That study, reported in this journal, showed very favourable results compared with Matrix or Short Wavelength Automated perimetry (SWAP) (7).

A recent feature of OFA is the introduction of three 5th-generation, high-efficiency tests that assess both eyes in under 90 s (17, 18). We examine two such tests: a wide-field and a macular OFA version. These closely match the visual field extents of the two higher spatial resolution 4th-generation tests examined here 10 years apart. We will compare the tests. Our main objective is to use 10-year retinal function changes in persons with type 2 diabetes (PWT2D) to examine the prognostic power for DR of OFA per-region sensitivity and response delays.

Methods

Subjects

In this longitudinal study, 16 PWT2D who were initially tested in our clinic were reexamined after 10 years. Participants who had ophthalmological or neurological diseases that would potentially affect visual acuity, colour vision, visual fields, or pupillary function were excluded. Additional exclusion criteria included history of ocular or head trauma, uncomplicated cataract surgery within 6 months, complicated cataract surgery at any time, spherical equivalent refractive error greater than ±9.00 diopters, or cylinder worse than ±2.00 diopters. This study was approved by the Australian Capital Territory Health Human Research Ethics Committee, and the Australian National University Human Research Ethics Committee. Informed written consent was obtained from each participant. The research adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Examinations

Participants underwent a comprehensive anterior and posterior segment examination at both visits. Best Corrected Visual Acuity was measured using a logMAR chart. Slit-lamp examination was performed to exclude media opacities, and pupillary reactions were evaluated to rule out relative afferent pupillary defect. Intraocular pressure and central corneal curvature were also measured. Visual field assessment was conducted using the Matrix perimeter (24-2 test). Subsequently, the pupils were dilated using 1% tropicamide eye drops, and OCT scans of the macula and peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer thickness were performed. In addition, OCT angiography of the macula and optic nerve head was done. Five 45° fundus photographs were taken for DR grading. Each fundus photograph was evaluated by a senior retinal surgeon (BBR) and a senior optometrist (FS) for key features of DR such as microaneurysms, haemorrhages, drusen, intraretinal microvascular abnormalities, venous abnormalities, and neovascularisations. Based on the presence and severity of these lesions, the eye was classified according to an established grading system, the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) severity scale, and ranged between L10 to L65 (19).

Additional diabetes complication assessments included blood pressure measurement, skin autofluorescence testing, and biothesiometry. The biothesiometer is a standard device that measures vibration sensitivity on the foot to assess the degree of peripheral neuropathy. To assess the vibration perception threshold, the biothesiometer probe was placed to six locations on each foot (great toe, 1st, 3rd, and 5th metatarsal heads, instep, and heel). The voltage was gradually increased from 0 to 50 V, and the level at which the participant first perceived the vibration at each site was recorded. The biothesiometer score was calculated as the average of these threshold voltages across all six points for each foot (20). The AGE Reader is a non-invasive device that uses skin autofluorescence to estimate systemic accumulation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) (21).

ObjectiveFIELD analyser

Objective visual fields were measured with an FDA-cleared, ObjectiveFIELD Analyser^® (OFA^®, Konan Medical USA, Irvine CA). The OFA testing was performed prior to any other ocular examinations, and participants were instructed to avoid consuming caffeinated beverages for at least 1 h before testing.

The OFA presented dichoptic multifocal stimuli simultaneously to both eyes via two liquid-crystal displays operating at 60 frames/s, with synchronised video cameras measuring direct and consensual responses from each eye concurrently (22). The responses measured are the relative constriction amplitude (converted to dB sensitivity) and time to peak (delay in ms), which is especially informative in diabetes (5, 6).

Two OFA stimulus protocols were used at both visits, OFA15 and OFA30 covering the central 30° and 60° of the visual field, respectively (5, 23). Each test takes 7–8 min, divided into nine 40-s segments with short rest breaks in between. The stimulus array was displayed in a dartboard layout consisting of 44 regions (11 per quadrant), arranged in five rings (Figures 1A-D). Individual stimuli presented for 33 ms with a mean interstimulus interval of 4 s at any given location, following pseudo-random temporal sequences generated using the Clustered Volleys method (24). A total of 90 stimuli were presented at each location, and the stimuli were delivered so that they never overlapped spatially. The per-region responses were calculated as the mean of the 90 presentations. The multifocal analysis was a non-linear regression method in which the response waveforms for each region were directly fitted to a log-normal model. This gave the response amplitude (which was transformed to decibel sensitivity) and the time to peak constriction (the response delay). Further details of the model are given at (25).

Figure 1

Figure 1. The panels show the spatial layout of the four main types of commercially available OFA stimuli, OFA30, OFA15, OFA 30-20 (a.k.a. W20), and the macular OFA 10 ETDRS (a.k.a. M18). The individual stimulus regions are presented via a multifocal stimulus method and appear transiently and randomly over time. The OFA30 and OFA15 stimulus arrays are scaled by a factor of 2. Their stimuli are potentially overlapping. (A, C) Boundaries of the regions. (B, D) Representations of the relative brightness of the left and right halves of the sets of rings of stimuli. (E, F) Layout of the newer W20 and M18 stimuli.

Additionally, two newer OFA test protocols, OFA 30-20 and OFA 10 ETDRS, were added at the second visit. The OFA 10 ETDRS is a rapid macular protocol assessing 18 regions/eye extending to ± 10° (Figure 1F). Its test regions and stimulus layout correspond to the EDTRS OCT subfields, allowing easy structure/function comparisons (18). The OFA 30-20 is a rapid wide-field protocol that tests 20 regions/eye across ± 30° (Figure 1E). Both protocols have a test duration of less than 90 s during which each region is tested 22 times (23).

The luminance of each stimulus for each protocol was designed to produce similar response amplitudes in healthy subjects, so-called luminance balancing (26). Stimulus borders were blurred allowing tolerance of ametropia up to ±3.0D. Trial lenses were used to correct participants’ distance refractive error, and stimuli were presented at optical infinity. Any vergence deficit was corrected before starting the tests. The participants fixated on a plus symbol at the centre of the viewing field. Fixation and blinks were monitored online, and data obtained during those periods were removed. Tests were repeated if data loss exceeded 15% of the total recording. The order of OFA protocols was randomized, and all protocols tested both eyes independently and concurrently.

Data analysis

Data analysis was performed using MATLAB (The MathWorks, LaGrange, GA). The response waveforms from each of the 18, 20, or 44 OFA test regions per eye were extracted from raw pupillary responses using multiple regression, with blinks removed from the pupil data before regression (27). Responses for each retinal region were fitted to a log-normal function to estimate per-region sensitivity and response delay (28). Response amplitudes were then logarithmically transformed into decibels (dB), whereas response delays (times to peak constriction) were recorded in ms. For OFA 30 and OFA 15, these were further transformed to a 30-2 pattern for reporting purposes (Figure 2A) (29). In addition, three alternative reporting layouts were used to analyse collections of responses (Figures 2B-D). Per-regional sensitivity and delay total deviations (TD) and pattern deviations (PD) from the OFA normative data were computed. Before calculating eye-wise measures, the per-region data from the right eyes were reflected to match the left-eye equivalent locations. Thus, the data from anatomically equivalent pairs of regions in the two eyes of each participant could be easily compared. The effects of OFA per-region sensitivity and delay TD and potential predictors such as age (fitted in decades relative to the mean age), sex, ETDRS severity, and visual field eccentricity on the risk (odds) of DR progression were explored using mixed-effects logistic regression models. Similar models examined the effects of OFA per-region sensitivity and delay PD. Furthermore, linear mixed-effect models were used to determine factors affecting longitudinal changes in OFA sensitivity and delay. The models contained random effects to ameliorate the possible effects of multiple comparisons. In particular, the effect of eyes within subjects was fitted. Two classes of models were fitted: standard mixed effects linear models (Matlab function fitlme), and models of log(odds) that used generalised mixed effects linear models (Matlab function fitglme) with a binomial distribution selected and a logit link function.

Figure 2

Figure 2. The report array and layout of collection of those regions used for statistical analysis. (A) The OFA30 and OFA15 data were mapped to a 30-2 pattern (half that scale for OFA15). (B) Layout of the six rings used as factors (categorical variables) in the mixed effects models. (C) The nine quadrants by ring zones (Quads). (D) versions of the Quad zones rotated by 45°.

Results

Participant data

A total of 16 PWT2D (11 men) with the mean age of 67.3 ± 11.9 (mean ± SD) years participated in this study. The participants had long-standing diabetes (23.7 ± 7.2 years, range 11 to 36 years). A total of 11 participants had evidence of peripheral neuropathy (biothesiometry score >15 on both feet). The summary and participant characteristics including demographic, ocular assessments other than OFA, and diabetes complication assessments are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Table 1. Clinical and demographic characteristics of the persons with type 2 diabetes on visit 2.

Average OFA total deviations

The results of OFA30 and OFA15 tests were analysed to assess the average changes in sensitivity and delays relative to the baseline test (Figure 3). In these plots, the yellow background indicates normal TD levels (i.e., 0), whereas cooler/darker tones represent abnormality, as shown on the calibration bars. The median TD plot from the OFA30 test showed reduced sensitivity in the lower nasal quadrant at visit 1, which appeared to progress at visit 2, where both the upper and lower quadrants showed reduced sensitivity. In the OFA15 test which corresponds to visual space covered by the inner rings of OFA30, reduced sensitivity was observed in the temporal field at visit 1, which appears to improve at visit 2. By contrast, the delay reports from both the OFA30 and OFA15 tests indicated worsening visual field defects over time. During visit 1, the more peripheral rings in the OFA30 showed longer delays compared with the inner rings. Although OFA15 exhibited less pronounced delays than OFA30 initially, after 10 years, both central and peripheral regions demonstrated prolonged delays across both stimulus protocols. The median sensitivity and delay pattern deviation plots for OFA30 and OFA15 across the two visits, along with their differences and standard deviations, are presented in Supplementary Figure S1.

Figure 3

Figure 3. The median sensitivity and delay total deviation data for OFA30 and OFA15 for two visits, their difference, and standard deviation (SD). The medians were computed at each 30-2 field location for all eyes. From the left to right columns: visit 1 (done in 2013/14), visit 2 (2024), difference, and SD of differences. Rows top to down show OFA30 sensitivity, OFA15 sensitivity, OFA30 delay, and OFA15 delay data.

The sensitivity and delay TD and PDs were also evaluated using the newer “High-Efficiency” OFA protocols, OFA30-20 and OFA10 ETDRS, which were only available for the second visit. Figure 4 presents the median sensitivity and delay TD for both protocols and their median absolute value plots. In the wider field test, OFA30-20, the superior-temporal field showed relatively better sensitivity compared with other quadrants; however, the corresponding delay TD plot revealed prolonged response delays in this same region. In the more central test, OFA 10 ETDRS, reduced sensitivity was observed predominantly in the central areas, whereas the delay plot demonstrated longer response delay in the more peripheral regions, although these were less than the delays of the peripheral OFA30-20 regions (Figure 4). Data for the pattern deviations is presented in Supplementary Figure S2.

Figure 4

Figure 4. The median sensitivity and delay total deviation data for OFA30-20 and OFA10 ETDRS, and their MAD-SD (the median absolute value scaled to be the same size as the SD for normally distributed data). From left to right columns: medians and MAD-SD. Rows top to down show OFA30-20 sensitivity, OFA10 ETDRS sensitivity, OFA30-20 delay, and OFA10 ETDRS delay data.

Diabetic retinopathy progression analysis

The mean ± SD interval between the first and second visits was 10.47 ± 0.27 years. At the first visit, nine patients showed no signs of DR in either eye, corresponding to an ETDRS severity level of 10 in both eyes. After 10 years, more than half of the participants (10 patients) demonstrated progression of DR by at least one severity level in one eye. Figure 5 shows the current DR severity levels compared with the baseline. Notably, a few eyes showed mild improvement in DR severity relative to their baseline grading.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Changes in ETDRS scores between 2013/14 and 2024 for all 32 eyes of the type 2 diabetes patients. The symbol positions have been jittered by a small amount so that they do not completely overlap.

We evaluated the risk of DR progression relative to the per-regional reductions in sensitivity and increases in response delay. In Figures 6A, C, each coloured tile represents different visual field regions, with colour intensity indicating the relative increase in risk of DR progression per 10 dB loss in sensitivity at baseline. In the OFA30 sensitivity plot, warmer colours (yellow/orange) in nasal field regions correspond to a higher relative risk (up to 1.74× increase), whereas cooler colours (blue) indicate little or no additional risk. Figures 6B, D illustrate the spatial distribution of the added N-fold risk of DR progression associated with a 10-ms increase in response delay at baseline. Regions where delays were more strongly associated with higher progression risk, up to approximately 1.12×, were concentrated in the central regions of OFA30, with the effect gradually decreasing toward the periphery.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Fitted N-fold relative risks (odds) of diabetic retinopathy progression per 10-dB loss in sensitivity and 10-ms increased delay. (A) Relative risk of progression per OFA30 sensitivity loss, (B) Relative risk of progression per OFA30 increased delay, (C) Relative risk of progression per OFA15 sensitivity loss, (D) Relative risk of progression per OFA15 increased delay.

Factors associated with diabetic retinopathy progression

The independent effects of OFA sensitivity and delay TDs, along with demographic and clinical factors in predicting DR progression, were examined using mixed-effects logistic regression models. Table 2 shows the results based upon the OFA30 sensitivity and delay TDs. To evaluate the effect of visual field eccentricity, the six rings of the 30-2 report (Figure 2B) were fitted as categorical factors. In all models, the intercept combines the central ring 1, right eyes of women, and ETDRS severity level 10. The models revealed that older age, being male, higher blood glucose level, ETDRS level 20, and left eyes were significantly associated with lower odds of DR progression, whereas higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), diabetes duration, biothesiometry score, and ETDRS level 35 were significantly associated with higher odds of DR progression. In the sensitivity TD models, rings 2 to 6 were significant predictors of DR progression, indicating that increased loss of sensitivity was significantly associated with higher odds of DR progression. Similarly in delay TD models, longer response delays across all rings were significantly associated with higher odds of DR progression. Similar results were obtained when the same models were fitted for the OFA15 TDs, Supplementary Table S1.

Table 2

Table 2. Outcomes of mixed-effects logistic regression models showing the significant determinants of DR progression (log odds) using A) OFA30 sensitivity and B) OFA30 delay. For the p-values, 0.000 indicates < 0.0001.

Factors associated with changes in sensitivity and delay total deviations

Mixed-effect linear regression models were fitted to identify factors associated with changes in sensitivity and delay TDs between the two visits (Tables 3A, B). In the model assessing changes in OFA15 sensitivity (Table 3A), older age, higher blood glucose level, longer diabetes duration, and higher body mass index were associated with greater sensitivity loss between visits. In contrast, higher haemoglobin A1c and eGFR were significantly associated with smaller sensitivity changes. Table 3 also shows that eGFR makes a significant independent contribution to the differences observed between the first and second visit OFA results. For sensitivity, there was a decrease of 0.13 dB per unit increase in eGFR, whereas delays became faster by 0.40 ms per eGFR unit. Furthermore, compared with eyes at ETDRS level 10, those at levels 20 and 35 showed significantly greater losses in sensitivity. Sex and biothesiometry scores were not significant predictors of sensitivity change. It is worth noting that on average PWT2D at ETDRS severity 20 on visit 1 had shorter average delays on visit 2 (35.15 ± 3.25 ms), whereas those that had been at ETDRS 35 had longer delays (7.79 ± 3.80 ms). Similar models examining changes in OFA30 sensitivity and delay TDs between visits are presented in Supplementary Table S2.

Table 3

Table 3. Factors associated with between-visit differences in OFA15 sensitivity and delay total deviations.

Agreement between OFA30 and OFA30-20

Given that the OFA30 and the OFA30-20 cover the same region of visual space (the central 60 degrees), it is reasonable to ask if there is general agreement between them. The OFA30 field from visit 2 where the fields were compared with the OFA30-20 field was measured on the same day. The summary statistics mean defect (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were compared (Figure 7). The Pearson correlations were all significant at p<0.0003. The MDs were the most similar. Paired t-tests were also done for each comparison. There were no significant differences for MD (dB) or PSD (ms). For MD (ms), the OFA 30 delays were 3.29 ± 4.51 ms longer (p=0.0012, mean ± SE). For PSD (dB), the OFA sensitivities were 5.30 ± 1.65 dB larger. That might be expected given that OFA 30 has a higher spatial resolution and so is able to report on sharper variations in the field.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Comparison of OFA30 and OFA 30-20 using mean defects (MDs) (A, B) and pattern standard deviations (PSDs) (C, D) for sensitivities (A, C) and delays (B, D). The measures and their Pearson correlations are shown in the title of each panel. Each panel shows the results for the 32 eyes of visit 2. The blue dashed line represents a slope of 1.

As for the two macular tests, OFA 10 ETDRS covers only 44.4% of the area of OFA15, so high correlations would not be expected. In fact, the MD (dB) comparison showed a significant correlation, r=0.700 (p<0.0001). The other three possible comparisons showed no significant correlations.

Discussion

This study assessed retinal function changes over a 10-year period and identified factors predicting DR progression among PWT2D using OFA. At baseline, the cohort included 35 PWT2D with or without DR. Of these, 16 participants were reexamined at the second visit after 10 years. Among those tested at the second visit, more than half (11 patients) had DR in one or both eyes. Moreover, nearly half of examined eyes showed DR progression since the baseline visit (Figure 5). DR progression was defined as an increase of one or more levels in ETDRS DR severity compared with the first visit.

We have reported previously that in earlier diabetes, there was an initial stage of hypersensitivity and shorter response delays, which gradually progressed to hyposensitivity and prolonged response delays as the duration and severity of the disease increases (5, 9, 30). Confirming these results, we found a significant association between DR progression and reduced sensitivity and prolonged response delay in all eccentricity rings.

An interesting finding in the OFA literature is that response delays are often more sensitive to early metabolic and retinopathy changes than are sensitivity measures. This is true for multifocal electroretinograms, where delays are somewhat predictive of DR recurrence (31) and onset (32). Recent OFA studies in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes cohorts found that per-region delays provided better discrimination between no-DR and early-DR eyes than amplitude deviations and that delay abnormalities correlated more strongly with metabolic/tissue-injury markers and ETDRS severity scores (7, 33). The current study also revealed that longer central delays were significant predictors of DR progression.

The OFA30 median TD plot revealed progressive sensitivity loss (Figure 3), initially in the lower nasal quadrant and later extending to both upper and lower quadrants. This pattern aligns with previous reports of reduced nasal field sensitivity in PWT2D (34). Here, regional sensitivity loss, particularly within the nasal field, was found to be strongly associated with higher risk of DR progression. As shown in Figure 6A, reductions in OFA30 sensitivity in the nasal regions corresponded to relative risks of up to 70%. This finding may reflect the non-uniform distribution of vascular lesions in DR. The earliest microvascular changes in DR such as microaneurysms are most commonly located in the temporal retina; this could explain a reduced sensitivity in the nasal fields (34, 35).

The delay TD plot of PWT2D showed defects on the peripheral regions at visit 1 loss (Figure 3), with additional central involvement observed at the 10-year follow-up. Our results also suggest that even small increases in response delay around central regions may be clinically significant predictors of DR progression, whereas peripheral delays contribute less to overall risk (Figure 6B).

Mixed-effect logistic regressions were fitted to identify independent predictors of DR progression. Older age was associated with reduced odds of DR progression, whereas longer diabetes duration was associated with increasing odds of progression. This was in line with previous studies which reported that the duration of diabetes was more important than age of patients in determining the prevalence and severity of DR (36). Rai et al. similarly reported an increased proportion of patients with hyposensitivity and prolonged delays with increasing duration of diabetes (5). Nitta et al. also found that the duration of type 2 diabetes significantly influences perimetric mean deviation, with visual field defects detected by short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) worsening approximately linearly with disease duration (11). Taken together, this might be because patients who have had long-standing diabetes tend to accumulate more years of exposure to hyperglycaemia and metabolic stress, both well-established risk factors for DR (37). Higher eGFR and biothesiometry score were also associated with increasing odds of DR progression in this study. It is worth noting that OFA tests have been shown to have higher diagnostic power than SWAP or Matrix perimetry (7). OFA testing was also better able to track mild off-axis macular oedema than Matrix perimetry (6).

In our cohort, being male was associated with reduced odds of DR progression. The influence of sex on DR risk has been inconsistently reported in the literature, with some studies finding higher prevalence or faster progression in men, whereas others show greater risk among women (38, 39).

Here, relative to eyes at ETDRS level 10 (no retinopathy), eyes at level 20 showed decreased odds of progression whereas eyes at level 35 showed increased odds. Others have reported that eyes with only isolated microaneurysms (level 20) often remain stable unless microaneurysm turnover (formation/disappearance rates) is high, whereas eyes reaching level 35 (mild non-proliferative DR with additional haemorrhages or exudates) might show a marked increase in risk of worsening (40, 41). How to best gauge the severity of retinopathy is the subject of intense discussion (42, 43).

There was a good agreement between summary measures from the 4th- and 5th-generation tests (Figure 7). These more rapid tests sacrifice spatial resolution of the field for speed. In testing both eyes in under 90 s, they are ideal for infirm persons and young people (44, 45).

A major strength of this study is its 10-year prospective follow-up, which offers extensive longitudinal data and enables evaluation of temporal changes in retinal function and disease progression. However, the limitations of this study include the small number of participants returning after 10 years. The study would have been improved by conducting multiple follow-up tests over the 10 years to expand our understanding of functional changes in PWT2D. 10-year structural changes among these participants are not discussed here but will be discussed in a separate article.

In summary, this study assessed visual function changes over the 10-year period among PWT2D using OFA. We observed that the progression of DR was associated with worsening pupillary response amplitudes and delays. In addition, our result indicates that the presence of reduced response amplitude at baseline in the nasal hemifield with OFA30 stimuli was the best predictor of DR progression. This demonstrates the utility and potential of OFA in detecting changes in visual function in PWT2D and monitoring DR progression.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the Australian Capital Territory Health Human Research Ethics Committee, and the Australian National University Human Research Ethics Committee. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

BY: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. BR: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. JV: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Resources. FS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. ER: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. CN: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Resources. TM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. NHMRC 1028560, ARC CE0561903, Our Health in Our Hands (OHIOH) ANU intramural grant. ANU PhD Scholarship awarded to Betelhem T. Yibekal.

Conflict of interest

Prof TM received grant support from Konan Medical USA Inc. TM, BR, JK, and FS could be paid royalties for the sale of the OFA.

The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2025.1755262/full#supplementary-material

Abbreviations

AMD, age-related macular degeneration; DR, diabetic retinopathy; DRD, diabetic retinal disease; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ETDRS, early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study; MD, mean defect; MPOD, macular pigment optical density; OCT, optical coherence tomography; OFA, ObjectiveFIELD analyser; PD, pattern deviation; PSD, pattern standard deviation; PWT2D, persons with type 2 diabetes; SAP, standard automated perimetry; SWAP, short-wavelength automated perimetry; TD, total deviation; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor.

References

1. Ansari P, Tabasumma N, Snigdha NN, Siam NH, Panduru RV, Azam S, et al. Diabetic retinopathy: an overview on mechanisms, pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy. Diabetology. (2022) 3:159–75. doi: 10.3390/diabetology3010011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Rai BB, van Kleef JP, Sabeti F, Vlieger R, Suominen H, and Maddess T. Early diabetic eye damage: comparing detection methods using diagnostic power. Survey Ophthal. (2024) 69:24–33. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2023.09.002

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Rai BB, Nolan CJ, and Maddess T. Functional diabetic retinopathy: A new concept to improve management of diabetic retinal diseases. Survey Ophthal. (2024) 70:232–40. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2024.11.010

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Bell A, James AC, Kolic M, Essex RW, and Maddess T. Dichoptic multifocal pupillography reveals afferent visual field defects in early type 2 diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. (2010) 51:602–8. doi: 10.1167/iovs.09-3659

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Rai BB, Maddess T, Carle CF, Rohan EMF, van Kleef JP, Barry RC, et al. Comparing objective perimetry, matrix perimetry, and regional retinal thickness in early diabetic macular oedema. Trans Vis Sci Tech. (2021) 10:1–12. doi: 10.1167/tvst.10.13.32

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Sabeti F, Rai BB, van Kleef JP, Carle CF, Rohan EMF, Essex RW, et al. Objective perimetry identifies functional progression and recovery in mild diabetic macular oedema. PloS One. (2023) 18:1–20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287319

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Sabeti F, van Kleef JP, Iyer RM, Carle CF, Nolan CJ, Chia RH, et al. Discriminating early-stage diabetic retinopathy with subjective and objective perimetry. Front Endo. (2024) 14:1–12. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1333826

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Carle CF, James AC, Kolic M, Essex RW, and Maddess T. Blue multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. (2015) 56:6394–403. doi: 10.1167/iovs.14-16029

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Sabeti F, James AC, Carle CF, Essex RW, Bell A, and Maddess T. Comparing multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry (Mfpop) and multifocal visual evoked potentials (Mfvep) in retinal diseases. Sci Rep. (2017) 7:45847. doi: 10.1038/srep45847

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Rosli Y, Carle CF, Ho Y, James AC, Kolic M, Rohan EMF, et al. Retinotopic effects of visual attention revealed by dichoptic multifocal pupillography. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:2991. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21196-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Nitta K, Saito Y, Kobayashi A, and Sugiyama K. Influence of clinical factors on blue-on-yellow perimetry for diabetic patients without retinopathy: comparison with white-on-white perimetry. Retina. (2006) 26:797–802. doi: 10.1097/01.iae.0000244263.98642.61

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Casson EJ and Johnson CA eds. Flicker perimetry in ocular hypertensives: evidence for high- and low-sensitivity defects. In: Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System, Technical Digest Series. Optica, California, USA.

Google Scholar

13. Sabeti F, Maddess T, Essex RW, and James AC. Multifocal pupillography identifies ranibizumab-induced changes in retinal function for exudative age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. (2012) 53:253–60. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-8004

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Rai BB, Essex RW, Sabeti F, Maddess T, Rohan EMF, van Kleef JP, et al. An objective perimetry study of central versus. Peripheral sensitivities and delays in age-related macular degeneration. Trans Vis Sci Tech. (2021) 10:1–14. doi: 10.1167/tvst.10.14.24

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Maddess T, Carle CF, Kolic M, Sarac O, Essex R, Rohan EMF, et al eds. Independence across Space and Time of Sensitivity and Delay Visual Field Measures in Glaucoma. Cardiff: IPS (2024).

Google Scholar

16. Maddess T, Carle CF, Rohan EMF, Baird-Gunning J, van Kleef JP, and Lueck CJ. Objective perimetry and progression of multiple sclerosis. eNeurol Sci. (2022) 100430:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ensci.2022.100430

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Maddess T, van Kleef JP, Rohan EMF, Carle CF, Baird-Gunning J, Rai BB, et al. Rapid, non-contact multifocal visual assessment in multiple sclerosis. Neurol Sci. (2022) 43:1–7. doi: 10.1007/s10072-022-06387-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Rai BB, Sabeti F, Carle CF, Rohan EMF, van Kleef JP, Essex RW, et al. Rapid objective testing of visual function matched to the etdrs-grid, and its diagnostic power in amd. Ophthalmol Sci. (2022) 2:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2022.100143

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. ETDRS. Fundus photographic risk factors for progression of diabetic retinopathy. Etdrs report number 12. Early treatment diabetic retinopathy study research group. Ophthalmology. (1991) 98:823–33. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(13)38014-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Kelshikar S, Athavale V, Parekh RA, and Ranka M. The role of a biothesiometer in early detection and management of diabetic neuropathy. Cureus. (2024) 16(10):e70588. doi: 10.7759/cureus.70588

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

21. De Vos LC, Noordzij MJ, Mulder DJ, Smit AJ, Lutgers HL, Dullaart RP, et al. Skin autofluorescence as a measure of advanced glycation end products deposition is elevated in peripheral artery disease. Arterioscl Thrombosis Vasc Biol. (2013) 33:131–8. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.112.300016

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Maddess T, Bedford SM, Goh XL, and James AC. Multifocal pupillographic visual field testing in glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. (2009) 37:678–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2009.02107.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Maddess T, van Kleef JP, Rohan EM, Carle CF, Baird-Gunning J, Rai BB, et al. Rapid, non-contact multifocal visual assessment in multiple sclerosis. Neurol Sci. (2023) 44:273–9. doi: 10.1007/s10072-022-06387-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Carle CF, James AC, Sabeti F, Kolic M, Essex RW, Shean C, et al. Clustered volleys stimulus presentation for multifocal objective perimetry. Trans Vision Sci Technol. (2022) 11:5–. doi: 10.1167/tvst.11.2.5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Carle CF, James AC, and Maddess T. The pupillary response to color and luminance variant multifocal stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci. (2013) 54:467–75. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-10829

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Carle CF, James AC, Kolic M, Essex RW, and Maddess T. Luminance and colour variant pupil perimetry in glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. (2014) 42:815–24. doi: 10.1111/ceo.12346

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. James AC, Ruseckaite R, and Maddess T. Effect of temporal sparseness and dichoptic presentation on multifocal visual evoked potentials. Visual Neurosci. (2005) 22:45–54. doi: 10.1017/S0952523805221053

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Carle CF, James AC, Kolic M, Loh Y-W, and Maddess T. High-resolution multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci. (2011) 52:604–10. doi: 10.1167/iovs.10-5737

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Sabeti F, Lane J, Rohan EM, Rai BB, Essex RW, McKone E, et al. Correlation of central versus peripheral macular structure-function with acuity in age-related macular degeneration. Trans Vision Sci Technol. (2021) 10:10–. doi: 10.1167/tvst.10.2.10

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Sabeti F, Nolan CJ, James AC, Jenkins A, and Maddess T. Multifocal pupillography identifies changes in visual sensitivity according to severity of diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci. (2015) 56:4504–13. doi: 10.1167/iovs.15-16712

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Ng JS, Bearse MA Jr., Schneck ME, Barez S, and Adams AJ. Local diabetic retinopathy prediction by multifocal erg delays over 3 years. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. (2008) 49:1622–8. doi: 10.1167/iovs.07-1157

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Harrison WW, Bearse MA Jr., Ng JS, Jewell NP, Barez S, Burger D, et al. Multifocal electroretinograms predict onset of diabetic retinopathy in adult patients with diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. (2011) 52:772–7. doi: 10.1167/iovs.10-5931

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Sabeti F, Carle CF, Nolan CJ, Jenkins AJ, James AC, Baker L, et al. Multifocal pupillographic objective perimetry for assessment of early diabetic retinopathy and generalised diabetes-related tissue injury in persons with type 1 diabetes. BMC Ophthalmol. (2022) 22:166. doi: 10.1186/s12886-022-02382-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Somilleda-Ventura SA, Ceballos-Reyes GM, and Lima-Gómez V. Comparison of macular retinal sensitivity and its contribution to the foveal sensitivity between diabetic and non-diabetic patients with normal visual acuity. J Optomet. (2019) 12:180–5. doi: 10.1016/j.optom.2018.08.001

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Silva PS, Cavallerano JD, Sun JK, Soliman AZ, Aiello LM, and Aiello LP. Peripheral lesions identified by mydriatic ultrawide field imaging: distribution and potential impact on diabetic retinopathy severity. Ophthalmology. (2013) 120:2587–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.05.004

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Li H, Wang B, and Liu C. Association between age at diabetes diagnosis and the development and progression of diabetic retinopathy. Sci Rep. (2025) 15:13827. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-98840-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Magliano DJ, Sacre JW, Harding JL, Gregg EW, Zimmet PZ, and Shaw JE. Young-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus—Implications for morbidity and mortality. Nat Rev Endocrinol. (2020) 16:321–31. doi: 10.1038/s41574-020-0334-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Gibson AA, Cox E, Schneuer FJ, Humphries J, Lee CM, Gale J, et al. Sex differences in risk of incident microvascular and macrovascular complications: A population-based data-linkage study among 25 713 people with diabetes. J Epidemiol Community Health. (2024) 78:479–86. doi: 10.1136/jech-2023-221759

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Li M, Wang Y, Liu Z, Tang X, Mu P, Tan Y, et al. Females with type 2 diabetes mellitus are prone to diabetic retinopathy: A twelve-province cross-sectional study in China. J Diabetes Res. (2020) 2020:5814296. doi: 10.1155/2020/5814296

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Marques IP, Madeira MH, Messias AL, Martinho AC-V, Santos T, Sousa DC, et al. Different retinopathy phenotypes in type 2 diabetes predict retinopathy progression. Acta Diabetol. (2021) 58:197–205. doi: 10.1007/s00592-020-01602-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Marques IP, Ribeiro ML, Santos T, Reste-Ferreira D, Mendes L, Martinho AC-V, et al. Patterns of progression of nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy using non-invasive imaging. Trans Vision Sci Technol. (2024) 13:22–. doi: 10.1167/tvst.13.5.22

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Glassman AR, Elmasry MA, Baskin DE, Brigell M, Chong V, Davis Q, et al. Visual function measurements in eyes with diabetic retinopathy: an expert opinion on available measures. Ophthalmol Sci. (2024) 4:100519. doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2024.100519

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Levine SR, Myers MG, Barunas R, Chang DS, Dutta S, Maddess T, et al. Report from the 2022 mary tyler moore vision initiative diabetic retinal disease clinical endpoints workshop. Trans Vision Sci Technol. (2023) 12:33–. doi: 10.1167/tvst.12.11.33

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Maddess T, Rohan EMF, Kulh MA, van Kleef J, Rai BB, and Carle C. Diagnostic power of rapid multifocal objective perimetry in alzheimer’s. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci. (2024) 65(7):83.

Google Scholar

45. Maddess T, Rohan EMF, Rai BB, Carle CF, Nolan CJ, Sabeti F, et al. Diagnostic Power of Rapid Objective Perimetry in Young People with Type 1 Diabetes. New Orleans, USA: IOVS-ARVO (2023).

Google Scholar