ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2019
Evaluation of an Algorithm for Identifying Ocular Conditions in Electronic Health Record Data.
Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- Data Volume and the Need for Clinical Decision Support in Glaucoma Care.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Current state of electronic problems lists in primary care: a rapid scoping review.Family practice · 2026Article
- Using large language models to enhance clinically-driven missing data recovery algorithms in electronic health records.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Identification of Risk Factors for Glaucoma Progression in Free-Text Clinical Notes Using a Local Large Language Model.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- NLP-ROPCare: predicting retinopathy of prematurity with admission notes using natural language processing.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Observational
- Clinically informed semi-supervised learning improves disease annotation and equity from electronic health records: a glaucoma case study.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Clinically Informed Semi-Supervised Learning Improves Disease Annotation and Equity from Electronic Health Records: A Glaucoma Case Study.Research square · 2025Article
- Clinically Informed Semi-Supervised Learning Improves Disease Annotation and Equity from Electronic Health Records: A Glaucoma Case Study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence technology in ophthalmology public health: current applications and future directions.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- From real world data to real world evidence to improve outcomes in neuro-ophthalmology.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- Using Natural Language Processing to Identify Different Lens Pathology in Electronic Health Records.American journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Advancing healthcare: the role and impact of AI and foundation models.American journal of translational research · 2024Review
- Advancing Toward a Common Data Model in Ophthalmology: Gap Analysis of General Eye Examination Concepts to Standard Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Concepts.Ophthalmology science · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Nallasamy formula: a stacking ensemble machine learning method for refraction prediction in cataract surgery.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- MAEPI and CIR: New Metrics for Robust Evaluation of the Prediction Performance of AI-Based IOL Formulas.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Article
- Development and validation of algorithms to build an electronic health record based cohort of patients with systemic sclerosis.PloS one · 2023Article
- Accuracy of the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision for Identifying Infantile Eye Disease.Ophthalmic epidemiology · 2022Article
- The Impact of COVID-19 and Pandemic Mitigation Measures on Persons With Sensory Impairment.American journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Applications of natural language processing in ophthalmology: present and future.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: For research involving big data, researchers must accurately identify patients with ocular diseases or phenotypes of interest. Reliance on administrative billing codes alone for this purpose is limiting. Objective: To develop a method to accurately identify the presence or absence of ocular conditions of interest using electronic health record (EHR) data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a retrospective analysis of the EHR data of patients (n = 122 339) in the Sight Outcomes Research Collaborative Ophthalmology Data Repository who received eye care at participating academic medical centers between August 1, 2012, and August 31, 2017. An algorithm that searches structured and unstructured (free-text) EHR data for conditions of interest was developed and then tested to determine how well it could detect the presence or absence of exfoliation syndrome (XFS). The algorithm was trained to search for evidence of XFS among a sample of patients with and without XFS (n = 200) by reviewing International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-9 or ICD-10) billing codes, the patient's problem list, and text within the ocular examination section and unstructured (free-text) data in the EHR. The likelihood that each patient had XFS was estimated using logistic least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. The EHR data of all patients were run through the algorithm to generate an XFS probability score for each patient. The algorithm was validated with review of EHRs by glaucoma specialists. Main Outcomes and Measures: Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the algorithm were computed as the proportion of patients correctly classified with XFS or without XFS. Results: This study included 122 339 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 52.4 (25.1) years. Of these patients, 69 002 (56.4%) were female and 99 579 (81.4%) were white. The algorithm assigned a less than 10% probability of XFS for 121 085 patients (99.0%) as well as an XFS probability score of more than 75% for 543 patients (0.4%), more than 90% for 353 patients (0.3%), and more than 99% for 83 patients (0.07%). Validated by glaucoma specialists, the algorithm had a PPV of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.5%-97.7%) and an NPV of 100% (95% CI, 91.2%-100%). When there was ICD-9 or ICD-10 billing code documentation of XFS, in 86% or 96% of the records, respectively, evidence of XFS was also recorded elsewhere in the EHR. Conversely, when there was clinical examination or free-text evidence of XFS, it was documented with ICD-9 codes only approximately 40% of the time and even less often with ICD-10 codes. Conclusions and Relevance: The algorithm developed, tested, and validated in this study appears to be better at identifying the presence or absence of XFS in EHR data than the conventional approach of assessing only billing codes; such an algorithm may enhance the ability of investigators to use EHR data to study patients with ocular diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.