Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37868799›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science

Automated Recognition of Visual Acuity Measurements in Ophthalmology Clinical Notes Using Deep Learning.

Isaac A Bernstein, Abigail Koornwinder, Hannah H Hwang, Sophia Y Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Isaac A BernsteinDepartment of Ophthalmology, Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
Abigail KoornwinderDepartment of Ophthalmology, Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
Hannah H HwangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Sophia Y WangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.

Funding

Stanford Vision Research CoreP30EY026877 · NEI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Jeffrey L Goldberg · 2017 to 2026
$8.0M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY026877
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Visual acuity (VA) is a critical component of the eye examination but is often only documented in electronic health records (EHRs) as unstructured free-text notes, making it challenging to use in research. This study aimed to improve on existing rule-based algorithms by developing and evaluating deep learning models to perform named entity recognition of different types of VA measurements and their lateralities from free-text ophthalmology notes: VA for each of the right and left eyes, with and without glasses correction, and with and without pinhole. Design: Cross-sectional study. Subjects: A total of 319 756 clinical notes with documented VA measurements from approximately 90 000 patients were included. Methods: The notes were split into train, validation, and test sets. Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) models were fine-tuned to identify VA measurements from the progress notes and included BERT models pretrained on biomedical literature (BioBERT), critical care EHR notes (ClinicalBERT), both (BlueBERT), and a lighter version of BERT with 40% fewer parameters (DistilBERT). A baseline rule-based algorithm was created to recognize the same VA entities to compare against BERT models. Main Outcome Measures: Model performance was evaluated on a held-out test set using microaveraged precision, recall, and F1 score for all entities. Results: On the human-annotated subset, BlueBERT achieved the best microaveraged F1 score (F1 = 0.92), followed by ClinicalBERT (F1 = 0.91), DistilBERT (F1 = 0.90), BioBERT (F1 = 0.84), and the baseline model (F1 = 0.83). Common errors included labeling VA in sections outside of the examination portion of the note, difficulties labeling current VA alongside a series of past VAs, and missing nonnumeric VAs. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that deep learning models are capable of identifying VA measurements from free-text ophthalmology notes with high precision and recall, achieving significant performance improvements over a rule-based algorithm. The ability to recognize VA from free-text notes would enable a more detailed characterization of ophthalmology patient cohorts and enhance the development of models to predict ophthalmology outcomes. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Indexed as

Deep learningElectronic health recordsNatural language processingOphthalmologyVisual acuity

Identifiers

PMID37868799
PMCPMC10587603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.