Machine Learning Methods Using Artificial Intelligence Deployed on Electronic Health Record Data for Identification and Referral of At-Risk Patients From Primary Care Physicians to Eye Care Specialists: Retrospective, Case-Controlled Study
Joshua A Young,Chin-Wen Chang,Charles W Scales,Saurabh V Menon,Chantal E Holy,Caroline Adrienne Blackie
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/48295
2024-03-12
Abstract:Background: Identification and referral of at-risk patients from primary care practitioners (PCPs) to eye care professionals remain a challenge. Approximately 1.9 million Americans suffer from vision loss as a result of undiagnosed or untreated ophthalmic conditions. In ophthalmology, artificial intelligence (AI) is used to predict glaucoma progression, recognize diabetic retinopathy (DR), and classify ocular tumors; however, AI has not yet been used to triage primary care patients for ophthalmology referral. Objective: This study aimed to build and compare machine learning (ML) methods, applicable to electronic health records (EHRs) of PCPs, capable of triaging patients for referral to eye care specialists. Methods: Accessing the Optum deidentified EHR data set, 743,039 patients with 5 leading vision conditions (age-related macular degeneration [AMD], visually significant cataract, DR, glaucoma, or ocular surface disease [OSD]) were exact-matched on age and gender to 743,039 controls without eye conditions. Between 142 and 182 non-ophthalmic parameters per patient were input into 5 ML methods: generalized linear model, L1-regularized logistic regression, random forest, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and J48 decision tree. Model performance was compared for each pathology to select the most predictive algorithm. The area under the curve (AUC) was assessed for all algorithms for each outcome. Results: XGBoost demonstrated the best performance, showing, respectively, a prediction accuracy and an AUC of 78.6% (95% CI 78.3%-78.9%) and 0.878 for visually significant cataract, 77.4% (95% CI 76.7%-78.1%) and 0.858 for exudative AMD, 79.2% (95% CI 78.8%-79.6%) and 0.879 for nonexudative AMD, 72.2% (95% CI 69.9%-74.5%) and 0.803 for OSD requiring medication, 70.8% (95% CI 70.5%-71.1%) and 0.785 for glaucoma, 85.0% (95% CI 84.2%-85.8%) and 0.924 for type 1 nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), 82.2% (95% CI 80.4%-84.0%) and 0.911 for type 1 proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), 81.3% (95% CI 81.0%-81.6%) and 0.891 for type 2 NPDR, and 82.1% (95% CI 81.3%-82.9%) and 0.900 for type 2 PDR. Conclusions: The 5 ML methods deployed were able to successfully identify patients with elevated odds ratios (ORs), thus capable of patient triage, for ocular pathology ranging from 2.4 (95% CI 2.4-2.5) for glaucoma to 5.7 (95% CI 5.0-6.4) for type 1 NPDR, with an average OR of 3.9. The application of these models could enable PCPs to better identify and triage patients at risk for treatable ophthalmic pathology. Early identification of patients with unrecognized sight-threatening conditions may lead to earlier treatment and a reduced economic burden. More importantly, such triage may improve patients' lives.