Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39879089›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025

Diagnostic Decision-Making Variability Between Novice and Expert Optometrists for Glaucoma: Comparative Analysis to Inform AI System Design.

Faisal Ghaffar, Nadine M Furtado, Imad Ali, Catherine Burns

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Faisal GhaffarDepartment of Systems Design Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0000-9393-7932
Nadine M FurtadoSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2022-6616
Imad AliDepartment of Computer Science, University of Swat, Mingora, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0001-5569-3762
Catherine BurnsDepartment of Systems Design Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6182-958X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile expert optometrists tend to rely on a deep understanding of the disease and intuitive pattern recognition, those with less experience may depend more on extensive data, comparisons, and external guidance. Understanding these variations is important for developing artificial intelligence (AI) systems that can effectively support optometrists with varying degrees of experience and minimize decision inconsistencies.

objectiveThe main objective of this study is to identify and analyze the variations in diagnostic decision-making approaches between novice and expert optometrists. By understanding these variations, we aim to provide guidelines for the development of AI systems that can support optometrists with varying levels of expertise. These guidelines will assist in developing AI systems for glaucoma diagnosis, ultimately enhancing the diagnostic accuracy of optometrists and minimizing inconsistencies in their decisions.

methodsWe conducted in-depth interviews with 14 optometrists using within-subject design, including both novices and experts, focusing on their approaches to glaucoma diagnosis. The responses were coded and analyzed using a mixed method approach incorporating both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Statistical tests such as Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were used to find significance in intergroup variations. These findings were further supported by themes extracted through qualitative analysis, which helped to identify decision-making patterns and understand variations in their approaches.

resultsBoth groups showed lower concordance rates with clinical diagnosis, with experts showing almost double (7/35, 20%) concordance rates with limited data in comparison to novices (7/69, 10%), highlighting the impact of experience and data availability on clinical judgment; this rate increased to nearly 40% for both groups (experts: 5/12, 42% and novices: 8/21, 42%) when they had access to complete historical data of the patient. We also found statistically significant intergroup differences between the first visits and subsequent visits with a P value of less than .05 on the Mann-Whitney U test in many assessments. Furthermore, approaches to the exam assessment and decision differed significantly: experts emphasized comprehensive risk assessments and progression analysis, demonstrating cognitive efficiency and intuitive decision-making, while novices relied more on structured, analytical methods and external references. Additionally, significant variations in patient follow-up times were observed, with a P value of <.001 on the chi-square test, showing a stronger influence of experience on follow-up time decisions.

conclusionsThe study highlights significant variations in the decision-making process of novice and expert optometrists in glaucoma diagnosis, with experience playing a key role in accuracy, approach, and management. These findings demonstrate the critical need for AI systems tailored to varying levels of expertise. They also provide insights for the future design of AI systems aimed at enhancing the diagnostic accuracy of optometrists and consistency across different expertise levels, ultimately improving patient outcomes in optometric practice.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceClinical CompetenceClinical Decision-MakingGlaucomaOptometristsOptometryDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAIartificial intelligenceclinical datacomparative analysisconsistencydecision-makingdiagnostic accuracyexperts versus novicesexperts versus novices differenceseye diseaseglaucomaglaucoma diagnosishuman-centered AI designhuman factorsmethodologyoptometristoptometryprogression analysisrisk assessmentvisionvision impairment

Identifiers

PMID39879089
PMCPMC11822325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.