Interests and needs of eye care providers in clinical decision support for glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study whether clinicians who treat glaucoma are interested in using clinical decision support (CDS) tools for glaucoma, what glaucoma clinical decisions they feel would benefit from CDS, and what characteristics of CDS design they feel would be important in glaucoma clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Working with the American Glaucoma Society, the Utah Ophthalmology Society and the Utah Optometric Association, we identified a group of clinicians who care for patients with glaucoma. We asked these clinicians about interest in CDS, what glaucoma clinical decisions would benefit from CDS, and what characteristics of CDS tool design would be important in glaucoma clinical practice. RESULTS: Of the 105 clinicians (31 optometrists, 10 general ophthalmologists and 64 glaucoma specialists), 93 (88.6%) were either 'definitely' or 'probably' interested in using CDS for glaucoma. There were no statistically significant differences in interest between clinical specialties (p=0.12), years in practice (p=0.85) or numbers of patients seen daily (p=0.99). Identifying progression of glaucoma was the clinical decision the largest number of clinicians felt would benefit from CDS (104/105, 99.1%). An easy to use interface was the CDS characteristic the largest number of clinicians felt would be 'very important' (93/105, 88.6%). CONCLUSION: Of this group of clinicians who treat glaucoma, 88.6% were interested in using CDS for glaucoma and 99.1% felt that identification of glaucomatous progression could benefit from CDS. This level of interest supports future work to develop CDS for glaucoma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".