ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
An Automatic Framework to Create Patient-specific Eye Models From 3D Magnetic Resonance Images for Treatment Selection in Patients With Uveal Melanoma.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A-eye: Automated 3D MRI segmentation and morphometric feature extraction for eye and orbit atlas construction.PloS one · 2026Article
- Weakly Supervised Bayesian Shape Modeling from Unsegmented Medical Images.Shape in medical imaging : International Workshop, ShapeMI 2024, held in conjunction with MICCAI 2024, Marrakesh, Morocco, October 6, 2024, Proceedings. ShapeMI (Workshop) (2024 : Marrakech, Morocco) · 2025Article
- Automated segmentation for early detection of uveal melanoma.Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie · 2024Article
- Quantitative Perfusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Uveal Melanoma.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Review
- Automatic Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance-based measurements of tumour prominence and basal diameter for treatment planning of uveal melanoma.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- MRI-based 3D retinal shape determination.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Inter-Observer Variability in MR-Based Target Volume Delineation of Uveal Melanoma.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe optimal treatment strategy for uveal melanoma (UM) relies on many factors, the most important being tumor size and location. Building on recent developments in high-resolution 3D ocular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), we developed an automatic image-processing framework to create patient-specific eye models and to subsequently determine the full 3D tumor shape and size automatically. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 15 patients with UM, 3D inversion-recovery gradient-echo (T1-weighted) and 3D fat-suppressed spin-echo (T2-weighted) images were acquired with a 7T MRI scanner. First, the sclera and cornea were segmented from the T2-weighted image by mesh-fitting. The T1- and T2-weighted images were then coregistered. From the registered T1-weighted image, the lens, vitreous body, retinal detachment, and tumor were segmented. Fuzzy C-means clustering was used to differentiate the tumor from retinal detachments. The tumor model was verified and (if needed) edited by an ophthalmic MRI specialist. Subsequently, the prominence and largest basal diameter of the tumor were measured automatically based on the verified contours. These results were compared with manual assessments on the original images and with ultrasound measurements to show the errors in manual analysis.
resultsThe framework successfully created an eye model fully automatically in 12 cases. In these cases, a Dice similarity coefficient (mean surface distance) of 97.7%±0.84% (0.17±0.11 mm) was achieved for the sclera, 96.8%±1.05% (0.20±0.06 mm) for the vitreous body, 91.6%±4.83% (0.15±0.06 mm) for the lens, and 86.0%±7.4% (0.35±0.27 mm) for the tumor. The manual assessments deviated, on average, 0.39±0.31 mm in prominence and 1.7±1.22 mm in basal diameter from the automatic measurements.
conclusionsThe described framework combined information from T1- and T2-weighted images to accurately determine tumor boundaries in 3D. The proposed process may have a direct effect on clinical workflow, as it enables an accurate 3D assessment of tumor dimensions, which directly influences therapy selection.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.