MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302773935 · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2022.100231

Development of a Cloud-Based Clinical Decision Support System for Ophthalmology Triage Using Decision Tree Artificial Intelligence

2022· article· en· W4302773935 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stuti M. Tanya, Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, Sean G. Buchanan, Christopher S. Jackman

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriageDecision treeCloud computingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDecision support systemMachine learningMedical emergencyMedicineOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are an emerging frontier in teleophthalmology, drawing on heuristic decision making to augment processes such as triage and referral. We describe the development and implementation of a novel cloud-based decision tree CDSS for on-call ophthalmology consults. The objective was to standardize the triage and referral process while providing a more accurate provisional diagnosis and urgency. Design Prospective comparative cohort study. Subjects On-call referrals to a Canadian community ophthalmology clinic. Methods A web-based decision tree algorithm was developed using current guidelines and expert opinion. The algorithm collected tailored information on the patient's ophthalmic concern, and outputted a provisional diagnosis and urgency before sending an electronic referral to the on-call ophthalmology clinic. Data were described using descriptive statistics. Spearman-rho correlations and Cohen's kappa coefficient were used to characterize the observed relationships. Post hoc analysis was conducted using analysis of contingency tables and adjusted residuals. Main Outcome Measures Diagnostic category, provisional diagnosis, and urgency for the referring provider, CDSS, and ophthalmologist. Results Ninety-six referrals were processed. Referring providers included medical doctors (76.0%, n = 73), optometrists (20.8%, n = 20), and nurse practitioners (3.1%, n = 3). The CDSS (κ = 0.5898; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4868–0.6928; P < 0.0001) performed equally well with 66.7% agreement in determining category when compared with referring providers (κ = 0.5880; 95% CI, 0.4798–0.6961; P < 0.0001). The CDSS (agreement = 53.1%; κ = 0.4999; 95% CI, 0.4021–0.5978; P < 0.0001) performed better than referring providers (agreement = 43.8%; κ = 0.4191; 95% CI, 0.3194–0.5188; P < 0.0001) in determining a diagnosis. The CDSS (ρ = 0.5014; 95% CI, 0.3092–0.6935; P < 0.0001) also performed better than referring providers (ρ = 0.4035; 95% CI, 0.2406–0.5665; P < 0.0001) in determining urgency. The CDSS assigned a lower level of urgency in 22 cases (22.9%) compared with referring providers in 6 cases (6.3%). Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first cloud-based CDSS in ophthalmology designed to augment the triage and referral process. The CDSS achieves a more accurate diagnosis and urgency, standardizes information collection, and overcomes antiquated paper-based consults. Future directions include developing a random forest model or integrating convolutional neural network-based machine learning to refine the speed and accuracy of triage and referral processes, with emphasis on increasing sensitivity of the CDSS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.319
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmology ScienceSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207