ArticleOphthalmology science
Using Machine Learning to Identify Ophthalmology Subspecialty Care and Advance Workforce Research with the IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight).
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To develop machine-learning models to identify ophthalmology subspecialists using deidentified patient data from a large database. Design: Cross-sectional. Participants: All ophthalmologists participating in the American Academy of Ophthalmology's IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight) from 2013 to 2023 were classified under one of the following general or subspecialty categories: comprehensive, cataract, cornea, glaucoma, retina, oculofacial, pediatric, or neuro-ophthalmology. Methods: We collected the diagnosis, procedure, and prescription codes linked to each ophthalmologist. We performed binary subspecialty classification using random forest models with fivefold cross validation and multispecialty classification using 4 approaches (diagnosis only, procedure only, prescription only, and combined). Main Outcome Measures: Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), F1 scores, and Matthews correlation coefficient. Results: The study included 9032 ophthalmologists. Classification accuracy differed by subspecialty (AUROC, retina: 0.981; oculofacial: 0.975; pediatric: 0.972; glaucoma: 0.937; cornea: 0.932; neuro: 0.912; cataract: 0.861; and comprehensive: 0.760). The procedure-only random forest model had better performance (AUROC, 0.903) than the diagnosis-only (0.880) and prescription-only (0.835) model. Conclusions: Machine learning models leveraging the IRIS Registry can provide a near real-time assessment of the landscape of ophthalmic subspecialty care. Identifying subspecialty physicians through practice patterns may provide valuable insights into the future trends of eye care delivery with implications for workforce research and policy interventions. 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.