Currently accepted at: JMIR Medical Informatics
Date Submitted: Mar 24, 2026
Open Peer Review Period: Apr 16, 2026 - Jun 11, 2026
Date Accepted: Aug 26, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
This paper has been accepted and is currently in production.
It will appear shortly on 10.2196/96026
The final accepted version (not copyedited yet) is in this tab.
Unseen Insights: A Retrospective Natural Language Processing Study Exploring Secure Patient Messages in Ophthalmology
ABSTRACT
Background:
The rapid rise of secure patient messaging has transformed ophthalmic communication, with text volumes now exceeding pre-pandemic levels across healthcare systems. Our study uses a natural language processing model to explore patterns in over 30,000 secure messages and identify common ocular complaints and any differences by patient demographics.
Objective:
To characterize the clinical and administrative concerns communicated through secure ophthalmology messaging and to assess differences in message content across patient sociodemographic groups.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional study of de-identified, patient-initiated secure messages sent between June 2014 and July 2024. Patients with ophthalmic conditions who initiated secure electronic health record portal messages were included. Of the total 52,388 extracted message threads, 30,390 (58.0%) patient medical advice request messages routed solely to the Department of Ophthalmology from 4,817 unique patients were assessed after exclusion of questionnaires, courtesy messages, clinician responses, and messages routed to other healthcare departments. Participants were 2,673 (55.5%) females, 2,740 (56.9%) aged 50 years or older, 2,346 (48.7%) White, 4,392 (91.2%) non-Hispanic, and 2,774 (57.6%) married. Natural language processing and large language model–assisted topic classification were used to categorize message content. The distribution of message topics and frequency of clinical concerns were assessed and stratified by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and marital status. Differences in message frequency by demographic subgroup were assessed using 2-proportion z-tests.
Results:
Following preprocessing and topic modeling, 14,284 (47.0%) of the 30,390 messages could be pre-defined to a topic cluster and were included in the final analysis. Nearly half of all 14,284 pre-defined messages addressed administrative issues, including 4,166 (29.2%) scheduling-related inquiries, 1,352 (9.5%) pharmacy and medication refill requests, and 581 (4.1%) insurance document issues. Among clinical concerns, 2,975 (20.8%) messages involved vision disturbances, 1,241 (8.7%) involved glaucoma-related symptoms, 1,074 (7.5%) involved tumor-related questions, and 1,064 (7.4%) involved surgery-relevant concerns of the total 14,284 pre-defined messages. Message content differed significantly by demographic characteristics. Non-White patients more frequently raised issues related to pharmacy refills, insurance, glaucoma, and disability documentation, whereas White patients more often reported surgical concerns. Older patients more frequently messaged about glaucoma, surgery, and tumor-related issues, while female patients more often reported complications and swelling or infection.
Conclusions:
Secure patient messages frequently include clinically relevant symptoms with potential triage implications and demonstrate demographic differences in care-seeking behavior. Systematic analysis of message content may support safer triage, improved workflow efficiency, and more equitable delivery of ophthalmic care.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.