ABSTRACT
Purpose Psychological distress is highly prevalent in glaucoma and is associated with worse adherence, reduced quality of life, and faster disease progression. However, distress is rarely assessed in ophthalmology settings due to time, workflow, and staffing constraints. We evaluated two artificial intelligence (AI)-based screening strategies, designed to efficiently identify distressed primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) patients during routine care, aiming to achieve effective, resource conscious, low burden clinical screening.
Design Hybrid retrospective cohort and prospective cross-sectional study.
Participants The retrospective cohort included >3,000 POAG patients from the Duke Ophthalmic Registry. Prospective validation was conducted in a separate 300 POAG patient cohort who completed patient-reported distress screening.
Methods Using retrospective data, a neural network model was trained to predict an electronic health record (EHR)-derived computable phenotype of distress (“silver standard”). Prospective validation used the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) as the “gold standard.” Three screening strategies were compared against PHQ-8: (1) universal PHQ-2 screening (two-item screener administered to all patients), (2) AI-only screening (fully automated EHR-based screener), and (3) sequential screening, (only patients flagged as high risk by AI screener completed the PHQ-2). Performance metrics included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and screening burden.
Main Outcome Measures Sensitivity; specificity; PPV; NPV; accuracy; proportion of patients requiring secondary screening (screening burden).
Results Distress prevalence was 17% (PHQ-8 > 6). Universal PHQ-2 screening (> 0) achieved high sensitivity (0.96) but lower specificity (0.73) and PPV (0.41), while requiring screening of all patients. The AI-assisted sequential approach substantially reduced screening burden while maintaining strong diagnostic performance. By administering PHQ-2 to ∼25% of patients, sequential screening achieved sensitivity 0.64, specificity 0.93, PPV 0.64, NPV 0.93, and accuracy 0.88, representing a ∼50% increase in PPV compared to PHQ-2 alone. AI-only screening reduced burden further but did not achieve comparable sensitivity or predictive performance.
Conclusions AI-assisted sequential screening enables scalable, resource efficient identification of psychological distress in glaucoma care, substantially reducing screening burden while preserving clinically meaningful performance. This framework offers a practical pathway for integrating distress screening into routine ophthalmology workflows and improving the identification and referral of at-risk patients.
Competing Interest Statement
Conflicts of Interest: NC: None; YB: None; FF: None; KL: None; EYC: None; HMF: None; DM: None; AAJ: None; TS: None; KM: None; FAM: AbbVie (C), Annexon (C); Carl Zeiss Meditec (C), Enavate Sciences (C), Galimedix (C); Google Inc. (F); Heidelberg Engineering (F), nGoggle Inc. (P), Novartis (F); ONL Therapeutics (C), Perfuse Therapeutics (C), Perceive Bio (C), Stealth Biotherapeutics (C); Stuart Therapeutics (C), Thea Pharmaceuticals (C), Reichert (C, F).; SIB: None.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Duke University Institutional Review Board (Pro00108155).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All consented data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. Unconsented EHR data is cannot be made available, since it is not ours to share.
Funder Information Declared
