ArticleOphthalmology science
Enhanced Phenotype Identification of Common Ocular Diseases in Real-World Datasets.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: For studies using real-world data, accurately identifying patients with phenotypes of interest is challenging. To identify cohorts of interest, most studies exclusively use the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) billing codes, which can be limiting. We developed a method to accurately identify the presence or absence of 3 common ocular diseases (diabetic retinopathy [DR], age-related macular degeneration [AMD], and glaucoma) using electronic health record (EHR) data. Design: Database study. Participants: Three thousand nine hundred fourteen eyes from 1957 patients at 2 Sight OUtcomes Research CollaborativE (SOURCE) Ophthalmology Data Repository sites. Methods: We developed enhanced phenotype identification (EPI) algorithms that search EHR fields, including eye examination findings, orders, charges, medication prescriptions, and surgery data for evidence that a patient has glaucoma, DR, or AMD. We trained our EPI models using gold standard assessments of the EHR by ophthalmologists for the presence/absence of these conditions, compared the performance of our EPI models to models developed using ICD codes alone, and validated the performance of model using data from another SOURCE site. Main Outcome Measures: Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and model calibration. Results: The AUCs of our EPI models were better than ICD-only models for glaucoma (0.97 vs. 0.90), DR (0.997 vs. 0.98), and AMD (0.99 vs. 0.95). The AUPRCs of our EPI models were also much better than ICD-only models for glaucoma (0.79 vs. 0.32), DR (0.96 vs. 0.84), and AMD (0.74 vs. 0.55). When testing on patients from a second SOURCE site, the AUC and AUPRC for glaucoma (0.93, 0.74), DR (0.98, 0.77), and AMD (0.96, 0.64) were slightly worse than the primary site but still quite high. However, for all 3 conditions, model calibration was worse at the second site. Conclusions: Leveraging machine learning, we developed EPI models to accurately identify most patients with glaucoma, DR, and AMD in real-world datasets. The EPI models significantly outperform ICD-only models in identifying patients confirmed to have these conditions. These findings underscore the potential of using comprehensive EHR data combined with advanced machine learning techniques to improve the accuracy of patient phenotype identification, leading to better patient management and clinical outcomes. 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.