Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38089860›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2023

A machine learning system to optimise triage in an adult ophthalmic emergency department: a model development and validation study.

Camilo Brandao-de-Resende, Mariane Melo, Elsa Lee, Anish Jindal, Yan N Neo, Priyanka Sanghi, Joao R Freitas, Paulo V I P Castro, Victor O M Rosa, Guilherme F S Valentim and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Camilo Brandao-de-ResendeInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Mariane MeloNIHR Moorfields Clinical Research Facility, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Elsa LeeInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Anish JindalInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Yan N NeoAccident and Emergency Department, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Priyanka SanghiAccident and Emergency Department, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Joao R FreitasResearch Department, DemDX Ltd, London, UK.
Paulo V I P CastroHospital Sao Geraldo, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Victor O M RosaHospital Sao Geraldo, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Guilherme F S ValentimHospital Sao Geraldo, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Maria Luisa O HiginoHospital Sao Geraldo, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Gordon R HayInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Pearse A KeaneInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Daniel V Vasconcelos-SantosHospital Sao Geraldo, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Alexander C DayInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRDem Dx (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T019050/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceDigital healthEmergency careMachine learningOphthalmologyTriage

Identifiers

PMID38089860
PMCPMC10711497
OpenAlexW4389266131

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.