Diagnostic Decision-Making Variability Between Novice and Expert Optometrists for Glaucoma: Comparative Analysis to Inform AI System Design
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: While 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. OBJECTIVE: The 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Both 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».