| Literature DB >> 32704419 |
Wei-Chun Lin1, Jimmy S Chen2, Michael F Chiang1,3, Michelle R Hribar1.
Abstract
Widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) has resulted in the collection of massive amounts of clinical data. In ophthalmology in particular, the volume range of data captured in EHR systems has been growing rapidly. Yet making effective secondary use of this EHR data for improving patient care and facilitating clinical decision-making has remained challenging due to the complexity and heterogeneity of these data. Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques present a promising way to analyze these multimodal data sets. While AI techniques have been extensively applied to imaging data, there are a limited number of studies employing AI techniques with clinical data from the EHR. The objective of this review is to provide an overview of different AI methods applied to EHR data in the field of ophthalmology. This literature review highlights that the secondary use of EHR data has focused on glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, and cataracts with the use of AI techniques. These techniques have been used to improve ocular disease diagnosis, risk assessment, and progression prediction. Techniques such as supervised machine learning, deep learning, and natural language processing were most commonly used in the articles reviewed. Copyright 2020 The Authors.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; electronic health record; machine learning; ophthalmology
Year: 2020 PMID: 32704419 PMCID: PMC7347028 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.2.13
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.283
Figure 1.Flow diagram for the literatures selection.
Studies on Ocular Diseases Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques With EHR Data
| Authors | Aim | Disease | Algorithm Type | Specific Techniques | Performance | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lin et al. | Disease detection | Myopia | Supervised machine learning | Random forest | 95% CI for predicting onset of high myopia. 3 years onset prediction (AUC: 94%–98.5%), 5 years (85.6%–90.1%), 8 years (80.1%–83.7%) | Machine learning with EHR data can accurately predict myopia onset |
| Lee et al. | Improve diagnostic accuracy | AMD | Deep learning | Convolutional neural networks | For each patient, AUC (97.45%), accuracy (93.54%), sensitivity (92.64%), and specificity (93.69%) | Linked OCT images to EMR data can improve the accuracy of a deep learning model when used to distinguish AMD from normal OCT images |
| Baxter et al. | Risk assessment | Open-angle glaucoma | Supervised machine learningDeep learning | Logistic regression, random forests,ANNs | AUC of logistic model (67%), random forest (65%), ANNs (65%) | Existing systemic data in the EHR can identify POAG patients at risk of progression to surgical intervention |
| Chaganti et al. | Identify risk factors and improve diagnostic accuracy | Glaucoma, intrinsic optic nerve disease, optic nerve edema, orbital inflammation, and thyroid eye disease | Supervised machine learning | Random forest | AUC of classifiers: glaucoma (88%), intrinsic optic neuritis (76%), optic nerve edema (78%), orbital inflammation (77%), thyroid eye disease (85%) | EMR phenotype (from pyPheWAS) can improve the predictive performance of a random forest classifier with imaging biomarkers |
| Apostolova et al. | Patient identification | Open globe injury | Supervised machine learning & Text-mining | SVM | Text classification: precision (92.50%), recall (89.83%) | Free-form text with machine learning methods can used to identify open globe injury |
| Saleh et al. | Risk assessment | DR | Supervised machine learning | FRF, DRSA | Performance of FRF: | Ensemble classifiers (RFR and DRSA) can be applied for diabetic retinopathy risk assessment. The 2-step aggregation procedure is recommended |
| Rohm et al. | Predict progression | AMD | Supervised machine learning | AdaBoost, Gradient Boosting, Random Forests, Extremely Randomized trees, LASSO | Accuracy of logMAR VA prediction after VEGF injections.3 months: MAE (0.14), RMSE (0.18)12 months: MAE (0.16), RMSE (0.2) | EHR data of patients with neovascular AMD can be used to predict visual acuity by using machine learning models |
| Yoo and Park | Risk assessment | DR | Supervised machine learning | Ridge, elastic net, and LASSO | In external validation, LASSO predicted DR: AUC (82%), accuracy (75.2%), sensitivity (72.1%), and specificity (76.0%) | LASSO with EHR data can be used to predict DR risk among diabetic patients |
| Fraccaro et al. | Improve diagnostic accuracy | AMD | Supervised machine learning | Logistic regression, decision trees, SVM, random forests, and AdaBoost | AUC of random forest, logistic regression, and AdaBoost (92%); SVM, decision trees (90%) | Machine learning algorithms using clinical EHR data can be used to improve diagnostic accuracy of AMD |
| Sramka et al. | Improve surgical outcome | Cataracts | Supervised machine learningDeep learning | SVM-RMMLNN-EM | Both SVM-RM and MLNN-EM achieved significantly better results than the Barrett Universal II formula in the ±0.50 D PE category | SVM-RM and MLNN-EM with EHR data can be used to improve clinical IOL calculations and improve cataract surgery refractive outcomes |
| Peissig et al. | Patient identification | Cataracts | Text-mining | NLP | The multimodal model shows results including sensitivity (84.6%), specificity (98.7%), PPV (95.6%), and NPV (95.1%) | A multimodal strategy incorporating optical character recognition and natural language processing can increase the number of cataracts cases identified |
| Gaskin et al. | Identify and predict risks of cataract surgery complications | Cataract | Supervised machine learning | Bootstrapped LASSO, random forest | Based on the LASSO model, younger age (<60 years old), prior anterior vitrectomy or refractive surgery, history of AMD, and complex cataract surgery were risk factors associated with postoperative complicationsThe random forest model shows high NPV > 95% and moderate sensitivity (67%) and AUC (65%) | Bootstrapped LASSO can be used to identify risk factors of postoperative complications of cataract surgeryRandom forest shows good reliability for predicting cataract surgery complications |
| Skevofilakas et al. | Risk assessment | DR | Deep learningSupervised machine learning | FNN and iHWNNCART | AUC of hybrid DSS (98%), iHWNN (97%), FNN (88%), and CART (86%). | Hybrid DSS trained on imaging and related EHR data can estimate the risk of a type 1 diabetic patient developing diabetic retinopathy |
AMD, age-related macular degeneration; ANN, artificial neural network; AUC, area under the curve; CART, classification and regression tree; CI, confidence interval; DR, diabetic retinopathy; DRSA, dominance-based rough set approach; DSS, decision support system; EHR, electronic medical record; EMR, electronic medical record; FNN, feed forward neural network; FRF, fuzzy random forest; iHWNN, improved hybrid wavelet neural network; IOL, intraocular lens; LogMAR, logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; MAE, mean absolute error; MLNN-EM, multilayer neural network ensemble model; NLP, natural language processing; NPV, negative predictive value; OCT, optical coherence tomography; POAG, primary open-angle glaucoma; RFR, random forest regression; RMSE, root mean squared error; SVM, support vector machine; SVM-RM, support vector machine regression model; VA, visual acuity; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor.
Figure 2.Schematic of the steps of machine learning application. NLP, natural language processing; SVM, support vector machine; CART, classification and regression tree; CNN, convolutional neural network; FNN, feed forward neural network.
Figure 3.Illustrations of machine learning models. 3A. Linear regression; 3B. Logistic regression; 3C. Support vector machine; 3D. Classification and regression trees (CART); 3E. Ensemble methods; 3F. Artificial neural network (ANN).