MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414032054 · doi:10.2196/69216

Identifying Transportation Needs in Ophthalmology Clinic Notes Using Natural Language Processing: Retrospective, Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4414032054 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lauren M. Wasser, Chenyu Li, J Cassidy, Pooja Tallapaneni, Hunter Osterhoudt, Yanshan Wang, Andrew M. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institutes of HealthNational Eye InstituteHillman FoundationEye and Ear Foundation of PittsburghAmerican Glaucoma SocietyUniversity of PittsburghResearch to Prevent Blindness
KeywordsCross-sectional studyMedicineRetrospective cohort studyOptometryNatural historyMedical emergencyComputer scienceSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Transportation insecurity is a known barrier to accessing eye care and is associated with poorer visual outcomes for patients. However, its mention is seldom captured in structured data fields in electronic health records, limiting efforts to identify and support affected patients. Free-text clinical documentation may more efficiently capture information on transportation-related challenges than structured data. Objective: In this study, we aimed to identify mention of transportation insecurity in free-text ophthalmology clinic notes using natural language processing (NLP). Methods: In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, we examined ophthalmology clinic notes of adult patients with an encounter at a tertiary academic eye center from 2016 to 2023. Demographic information and free text from clinical notes were extracted from electronic health records and deidentified for analysis. Free text was used to develop a rule-based NLP algorithm to identify transportation insecurity. The NLP algorithm was trained and validated using a gold-standard expert review, and precision, recall, and F1-scores were used to evaluate the algorithm's performance. Logistic regression evaluated associations between demographics and transportation insecurity. Results: A total of 1,801,572 clinical notes of 118,518 unique patients were examined, and the NLP algorithm identified 726 (0.6%) patients with transportation insecurity. The algorithm's precision, recall, and F1-score were 0.860, 0.960, and 0.778, respectively, indicating high agreement with the gold-standard expert review. Patients with identified transportation insecurity were more likely to be older (OR 3.01, 95% CI 2.38-3.78 for those aged ≥80 vs 18-60 y) and less likely to identify as Asian (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0-0.18 for Asian patients vs White patients). There was no difference by sex (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.97-1.31) or between the Black and White races (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79-1.22). Conclusions: NLP has the potential to identify patients experiencing transportation insecurity from ophthalmology clinic notes, which may help to facilitate referrals to transportation resources.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.434 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207