ArticleEClinicalMedicine2023
A machine learning system to optimise triage in an adult ophthalmic emergency department: a model development and validation study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current landscape and research gaps in artificial intelligence for ophthalmic nursing: a scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Real-World Performance of a New Online Eye Symptom Triage Tool (Eye+Dot) in an Emergency Eye Clinic: Mixed Methods Evaluation Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Surgical capacity in ophthalmology: the unmet need for sustainable solutions.Eye (London, England) · 2026Review
- Ophthalmic Emergency Department Visits at a Tertiary Medical Center in Israel: Demographics and Clinical Characteristics Over a Six-Month Period.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Neural network for natural language processing to determine treatment urgency in an ophthalmology emergency department.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Prediction of new HIV infection in men who have sex with men based on machine learning: secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study from Western China.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology: Practical Applications, Subspecialty Evidence and Real-World Deployment.Cureus · 2025Review
- Exploring Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Critical Care Nursing: A Systematic Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
- Multimodal machine learning enables AI chatbot to diagnose ophthalmic diseases and provide high-quality medical responses.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Predicting HIV self-testing intentions among Chinese college students: a dual-model analysis integrating health belief constructs and machine learning prioritization.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Triaging Patients in Eye Casualty Departments: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Evaluating Ocular Healthcare Accessibility and the Severity of Emergencies during Times of Crisis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- eHealth Assistant AI Chatbot Using a Large Language Model to Provide Personalized Answers through Secure Decentralized Communication.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Enhancing Ophthalmic Triage: identification of new clinical features to support healthcare professionals in triage.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Drinking from the Holy Grail-Does a Perfect Triage System Exist? And Where to Look for It?Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: A substantial proportion of attendances to ophthalmic emergency departments are for non-urgent presentations. We developed and evaluated a machine learning system (DemDx Ophthalmology Triage System: DOTS) to optimise triage, with the aim of reducing inappropriate emergency attendances and streamlining case referral when necessary. Methods: DOTS was built using retrospective tabular data from 11,315 attendances between July 1st, 2021, to June 15th, 2022 at Moorfields Eye Hospital Emergency Department (MEH) in London, UK. Demographic and clinical features were used as inputs and a triage recommendation was given ("see immediately", "see within a week", or "see electively"). DOTS was validated temporally and compared with triage nurses' performance (1269 attendances at MEH) and validated externally (761 attendances at the Federal University of Minas Gerais - UFMG, Brazil). It was also tested for biases and robustness to variations in disease incidences. All attendances from patients aged at least 18 years with at least one confirmed diagnosis were included in the study. Findings: For identifying ophthalmic emergency attendances, on temporal validation, DOTS had a sensitivity of 94.5% [95% CI 92.3-96.1] and a specificity of 42.4% [38.8-46.1]. For comparison within the same dataset, triage nurses had a sensitivity of 96.4% [94.5-97.7] and a specificity of 25.1% [22.0-28.5]. On external validation at UFMG, DOTS had a sensitivity of 95.2% [92.5-97.0] and a specificity of 32.2% [27.4-37.0]. In simulated scenarios with varying disease incidences, the sensitivity was ≥92.2% and the specificity was ≥36.8%. No differences in sensitivity were found in subgroups of index of multiple deprivation, but the specificity was higher for Q2 when compared to Q4 (Q4 is less deprived than Q2). Interpretation: At MEH, DOTS had similar sensitivity to triage nurses in determining attendance priority; however, with a specificity of 17.3% higher, DOTS resulted in lower rates of patients triaged to be seen immediately at emergency. DOTS showed consistent performance in temporal and external validation, in social-demographic subgroups and was robust to varying relative disease incidences. Further trials are necessary to validate these findings. This system will be prospectively evaluated, considering human-computer interaction, in a clinical trial. Funding: The Artificial Intelligence in Health and Care Award (AI_AWARD01671) of the NHS AI Lab under National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and the Accelerated Access Collaborative (AAC).
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.