ArticleOphthalmology science
Improving the Identification of Diabetic Retinopathy and Related Conditions in the Electronic Health Record Using Natural Language Processing Methods.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Central Role of Oxidative Stress in Diabetic Retinopathy: Advances in Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Therapy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Identifying Patients at High Risk of Lapses in Diabetic Retinopathy Care: A Machine Learning Study.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- The Association of Vertically Integrated Delivery Networks on Lapses in Diabetic Retinopathy Care and Presenting Diabetic Retinopathy Severity.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Semaglutide and diabetic retinopathy: an OHDSI network study.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2025 · on this mapObservational
- Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy Disproportionately Impacts Distressed Communities Near a Northeastern Academic Center.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the performance of 3 phenotyping methods in identifying diabetic retinopathy (DR) and related clinical conditions. Design: Three phenotyping methods were used to identify clinical conditions including unspecified DR, nonproliferative DR (NPDR) (mild, moderate, severe), consolidated NPDR (unspecified DR or any NPDR), proliferative DR, diabetic macular edema (DME), vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment (RD) (tractional RD or combined tractional and rhegmatogenous RD), and neovascular glaucoma (NVG). The first method used only International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes ( Subjects: Adults ≥18 years with diabetes mellitus seen at the Wilmer Eye Institute. Methods: We compared the performance of the 3 phenotyping methods in identifying the DR related conditions with gold standard chart review. We also compared the estimated disease prevalence using each method. Main Outcome Measures: Performance of each method was reported as the macro F1 score. The agreement between the methods was calculated using the kappa statistic. Prevalence estimates were also calculated for each method. Results: A total of 91 097 patients and 692 486 office visits were included in the study. Compared with the gold standard, the Conclusions: The prevalence of DR and related conditions varied significantly depending on the methodology of identifying cases. The best performing phenotyping method was the Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.