Douglas M Baughman1, Grace L Su2, Irena Tsui3, Cecilia S Lee1, Aaron Y Lee1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2. Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Jules Stein Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: With increasing volumes of electronic health record data, algorithm-driven extraction may aid manual extraction. Visual acuity often is extracted manually in vision research. The total visual acuity extraction algorithm (TOVA) is presented and validated for automated extraction of visual acuity from free text, unstructured clinical notes. METHODS: Consecutive inpatient ophthalmology notes over an 8-year period from the University of Washington healthcare system in Seattle, WA were used for validation of TOVA. The total visual acuity extraction algorithm applied natural language processing to recognize Snellen visual acuity in free text notes and assign laterality. The best corrected measurement was determined for each eye and converted to logMAR. The algorithm was validated against manual extraction of a subset of notes. RESULTS: A total of 6266 clinical records were obtained giving 12,452 data points. In a subset of 644 validated notes, comparison of manually extracted data versus TOVA output showed 95% concordance. Interrater reliability testing gave κ statistics of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-0.99), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.98), 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.98), and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.90-0.98) for acuity numerators, denominators, adjustments, and signs, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.983. Linear regression showed an R2 of 0.966 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The total visual acuity extraction algorithm is a novel tool for extraction of visual acuity from free text, unstructured clinical notes and provides an open source method of data extraction. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Automated visual acuity extraction through natural language processing can be a valuable tool for data extraction from free text ophthalmology notes.
PURPOSE: With increasing volumes of electronic health record data, algorithm-driven extraction may aid manual extraction. Visual acuity often is extracted manually in vision research. The total visual acuity extraction algorithm (TOVA) is presented and validated for automated extraction of visual acuity from free text, unstructured clinical notes. METHODS: Consecutive inpatient ophthalmology notes over an 8-year period from the University of Washington healthcare system in Seattle, WA were used for validation of TOVA. The total visual acuity extraction algorithm applied natural language processing to recognize Snellen visual acuity in free text notes and assign laterality. The best corrected measurement was determined for each eye and converted to logMAR. The algorithm was validated against manual extraction of a subset of notes. RESULTS: A total of 6266 clinical records were obtained giving 12,452 data points. In a subset of 644 validated notes, comparison of manually extracted data versus TOVA output showed 95% concordance. Interrater reliability testing gave κ statistics of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-0.99), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.98), 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.98), and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.90-0.98) for acuity numerators, denominators, adjustments, and signs, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.983. Linear regression showed an R2 of 0.966 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The total visual acuity extraction algorithm is a novel tool for extraction of visual acuity from free text, unstructured clinical notes and provides an open source method of data extraction. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Automated visual acuity extraction through natural language processing can be a valuable tool for data extraction from free text ophthalmology notes.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical research; data mining; electronic health records; natural language processing; visual acuity
Authors: Robert S Feder; Timothy W Olsen; Bruce E Prum; C Gail Summers; Randall J Olson; Ruth D Williams; David C Musch Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: David H Smith; Eric S Johnson; Allen Russell; Brian Hazlehurst; Cecilia Muraki; Gregory A Nichols; Allen Oglesby; Jonathan Betz-Brown Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-10-30 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Julliette M Buckley; Suzanne B Coopey; John Sharko; Fernanda Polubriaginof; Brian Drohan; Ahmet K Belli; Elizabeth M H Kim; Judy E Garber; Barbara L Smith; Michele A Gadd; Michelle C Specht; Constance A Roche; Thomas M Gudewicz; Kevin S Hughes Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2012-06-30
Authors: Carol J Waudby; Richard L Berg; James G Linneman; Luke V Rasmussen; Peggy L Peissig; Lin Chen; Catherine A McCarty Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Michael Mbagwu; Dustin D French; Manjot Gill; Christopher Mitchell; Kathryn Jackson; Abel Kho; Paul J Bryar Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2016-05-04
Authors: Sally L Baxter; Adam R Klie; Bharanidharan Radha Saseendrakumar; Gordon Y Ye; Michael Hogarth Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 5.428