Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we focus on artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening and risk stratification and factors to consider when implementing AI algorithms in the clinic. RECENT FINDINGS: AI algorithms have been adopted, and have received regulatory approval, for automated detection of referable DR with clinically acceptable diagnostic performance. While these metrics are an important first step, performance metrics that go beyond measures of technical accuracy are needed to fully evaluate the impact of AI algorithm on patient outcomes. Recent advances in AI present an exciting opportunity to improve patient care. Using DR as an example, we have reviewed factors to consider in the implementation of AI algorithms in real-world clinical practice. These include real-world evaluation of safety, efficacy, and equity (bias); impact on patient outcomes; ethical, logistical, and regulatory factors.

Characterizing the microbiota of instrumentation in ophthalmology clinics during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Increased ophthalmology-specific risk of novel coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is well-established, increasing the fear of infection and causing associated decreased rates of procedures known to save vision. However, the potential transmission from exposure to clinic instrumentation is unknown, including which additional pathogens may be spreading in this context. This study seeks to fill this gap by characterizing the microbiota of instrumentation in ophthalmology clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic and identifying potential sources of pathogenic spread encountered by patients and healthcare workers. METHODS: Thirty-three samples were captured using standard cultures and media. Ten positive and negative controls were used to confirm proper technique. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all samples. Samples were collected from the retina (N = 17), glaucoma (N = 6), cornea (N = 6), and resident (N = 4) clinics with rigorous disinfection standards at a tertiary academic medical center. Standard media cultures and/or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed for each sample. RESULTS: From 33 samples, more than half (17/33, 51.5%) yielded bacterial growth. Using two different molecular methods, three samples (3/33, 9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cycle thresholds 36.48, 37.14, and 37.83). There was no significant difference in bacterial growth (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: - 0.644-0.358, p = 0.076) among different clinics (retina, glaucoma, cornea, resident). Staphylococcus (S.) epidermidis grew most frequently (12/35, 34%), followed by S. capitis (7/35, 20%), Micrococcus luteus (2/35, 5.7%), Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum (2/35, 5.7%), and Cutibacterium ([C.], Propionibacterium) acnes (2/35, 5.7%). C. acnes growth was more frequent with imaging device forehead rests (2/7, 28.6%) than other surfaces (0/26, 0%, 95% CI: 0.019-0.619, p = 0.040). No samples isolated fungus or adenovirus. CONCLUSIONS: Most samples across subspecialty clinic instrumentation grew bacteria, and several tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Many isolated pathogens have been implicated in causing infections such as endophthalmitis, conjunctivitis, uveitis, and keratitis. The clinical implications of the ophthalmology microbiome for transmitting nosocomial infections warrant optimization of disinfection practices, strategies for mitigating spread, and additional study beyond the pandemic.

Most Common Ophthalmic Diagnoses in Eye Emergency Departments: A Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: To characterize the most common ophthalmic conditions seen in the emergency department (ED) DESIGN: Cross-sectional study METHODS: This is a multicenter study of 64,988 patients who visited the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Wills Eye Hospital, and Johns Hopkins Hospital/Wilmer Eye Institute from January 1, 2019, until December 31, 2019. Demographic and primary diagnosis data were extracted including gender, age, race, ethnicity, insurance type, and ophthalmology consult status. Descriptive statistics were performed on all data using STATA IC 14 (64-bit). RESULTS: A total of 64,988 patients with primary ocular diagnoses were seen across all 4 EDs. The majority of patients were White (63.1%), non-Hispanic/Latino (64.8%), and female (52.3%). The most frequently seen age group was 50-64 years (28.6%). The most common diagnoses across all institutions were conjunctivitis (7.91%), corneal abrasions (5.61%), dry eye (4.49%), posterior vitreous detachments (4.15%), chalazions (3.71%), corneal ulcers (3.01%), subconjunctival hemorrhages (2.96%), corneal foreign bodies (2.94%), retinal detachments (2.51%), and glaucoma (2.12%). Specifically, viral conjunctivitis (2283 of 5139, 44.4%) and primary open-angle glaucoma (382 of 1379, 27.7%) were the most frequently seen subtypes of conjunctivitis and glaucoma. CONCLUSIONS: The most regularly treated ophthalmic conditions in high-volume EDs tend to be lower acuity diagnoses. To combat ED overcrowding and rising health care costs in the United States, we suggest diverting eye-related ED visits to a specialized eye ED service or same-day eye clinic appointment in addition to expanding education for patients and primary care clinicians.

Second Primary Malignancies following a Diagnosis of Conjunctival Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Although incidence of second primary malignancies (SPMs) has been investigated in patients with cutaneous melanoma and uveal melanoma, limited studies have investigated their occurrence subsequent to conjunctival melanoma (CM). We conducted a retrospective observational study to assess incidence of SPMs in patients with primary CM and to identify associated risk factors. METHODS: Cases of first primary CM diagnosed from 2000 to 2018 were extracted from the national cancer database Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and excess absolute risk (EAR) of SPMs were calculated compared to a matched cohort from the general population with similar sex, race, age group, and calendar year. EAR was per 10,000 individuals, and a P-value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 471 patients met inclusion criteria, 57 (12.1%) of whom developed second primary malignancies (excluding eye and orbit melanomas) over an average (±SD) follow-up period of 6.8 (±5.0) years. Average age at diagnosis for the overall cohort was 60.2 (±18.6) years. Patients with CM demonstrated a significantly increased risk for overall SPMs relative to the general population, even after excluding eye and orbit melanomas (SIR 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.97; EAR 67.58). Specific sites and malignancy types with increased risk were cutaneous melanoma (SIR 7.95; 95% CI, 4.45-13.12; EAR 45.34), ophthalmic non-melanoma malignancies (SIR 80.92; 95% CI, 2.05-450.84; EAR 3.41), and non-intrahepatic biliary malignancies (SIR 11.72; 95% CI, 1.42-42.32; EAR 6.32). Risk of overall SPMs (excluding eye and orbit melanomas) was significantly increased 5-10 years from diagnosis date. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CM had an increased incidence of SPMs compared to the general population. Specifically, these patients developed more cutaneous, ophthalmic non-melanoma, and non-intrahepatic biliary malignancies. These second neoplasms could be due to shared pathophysiology or mutual risk factors. Patients with CM may benefit from surveillance for SPMs, such as annual age-appropriate screenings in the first 10 years after diagnosis.

Assessing COVID-19 Health Information on Google Using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST): Cross-sectional and Readability Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic spurred an increase in online information regarding disease spread and symptomatology. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose is to systematically assess the quality and readability of articles resulting from frequently Google-searched COVID-19 terms in the United States. METHODS: We used Google Trends to determine the 25 most commonly searched health-related phrases between February 29 and April 30, 2020. The first 30 search results for each term were collected, and articles were analyzed using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST). Three raters scored each article in authorship, attribution, conflict of interest, currency, complementarity, and tone. A readability analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Exactly 709 articles were screened, and 195 fulfilled inclusion criteria. The mean article score was 18.4 (SD 2.6) of 28, with 7% (14/189) scoring in the top quartile. National news outlets published the largest share (70/189, 36%) of articles. Peer-reviewed journals attained the highest average QUEST score compared to national/regional news outlets, national/state government sites, and global health organizations (all P<.05). The average reading level was 11.7 (SD 1.9, range 5.4-16.9). Only 3 (1.6%) articles were written at the recommended sixth grade level. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-related articles are vastly varied in their attributes and levels of bias, and would benefit from revisions for increased readability.

The perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students' future careers.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted medical education on multiple levels, and medical students have been forced to adjust to distance learning, altered clinical opportunities, and standardized testing inconsistencies. We sought to identify the effects of these dramatic deviations on medical students' career plans. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of medical students between July 13, 2020, and September 9, 2020 in order to assess the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on students' career decisions. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Results: Of the 585 eligible medical students, we had a final sample of 76 responses (n=76) (13% response rate). Students felt neutral regarding having more time to explore research projects (Mean ± SD; 3.06 ± 1.18) and hobbies (3.43 ± 1.28). Most survey respondents somewhat disagreed that they considered quitting medical school during the pandemic (1.55 ± 1.10). Students somewhat agreed that they view the field of medicine more positively since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (3.60 ± 1.09). Respondents somewhat agreed that they would be unable to explore other specialties and find their best fit (3.55 ± 1.32). We found that the minority (4/66, 6%) of students had considered changing their specialty. Students felt neutral in terms of their Step 1 (3.25 ± 1.05) or Step 2 (2.81 ± 1.02) score deterring them from future career opportunities. Conclusions:  Most medical students have experienced barriers in their career pathway as a direct cause of COVID-19 restrictions on medical education, including the ability to explore different specialties to discover their best fit or find a chance to network with mentors. However, despite these obstacles, most students remain committed to medicine.

What are Ophthalmology Patients Asking Online? An Analysis of the Eye Triage Subreddit.

IMPORTANCE: Ophthalmology patients are seeking medical advice on social media websites like Reddit, where users are able to post comments and discuss issues pertaining to different topics that are organized in 'subreddits'. Understanding which issues are most pertinent will guide ophthalmic providers in delivering more effective patient education. METHODS: This cross-sectional study assessed a systematic sample of the first 22 posts and their top 3 comments from each month since January 27th, 2019, the subreddit's creation. Information was gathered from reddit.com/r/eyetriage in October 2019 and analyzed in November 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES: The posts were characterized by date and time, inclusion of an image, type, content, emotional tone, and number of upvotes and comments. The comments were categorized based on content, emotional tone, time of comment, and user background. Post and comment content codes were categorized in an iterative manner with differences resolved by author consensus. Categorical statistics were compiled. RESULTS: Two hundred posts and 456 comments were analyzed since the creation of r/eyetriage, a forum created exclusively for patients to seek advice from health-care professionals. Twenty-six (13%) of the total posts included an image. On average, comments received 1.76 ± 2.17 upvotes along with 4.50 ± 4.47 replies. The most common content codes among the posts were 42 (21.0%) seeking diagnoses, 23 (11.5%) surgical complications, and 13 (6.50%) alternative medication options. Eighty-two (41%) posts conveyed a clear emotional tone, most notably 11 (13.4%) with anxiety and 10 (12.2%) with worry. The top comments came from 165 (36.2%) self-identified patients, 151 (33.1%) optometrists, and 49 (10.8%) ophthalmologists. The top comment codes for replies included 158 (34.7%) with treatment advice, 70 (15.4%) with advice deferred to follow-up appointment with other health-care specialists, and 60 (13.2%) with sharing information. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are asking ophthalmology-related questions on the Eye Triage subreddit, and they are more likely to receive information from other patients or optometrists than from self-identified ophthalmologists. When emotions were revealed, patients were often anxious and worried. Opportunities exist for ophthalmologists to take a more active role on this subreddit and help educate patients.