ArticleMedical physics2025
Patient-specific mapping of fundus photographs to three-dimensional ocular imaging.
Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating uveal melanoma volume with ellipsoid tumour models.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
- Patient-specific mapping of fundus photographs to three-dimensional ocular imaging.Medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOcular proton beam therapy (OPT) planning would benefit from an accurate incorporation of fundus photographs, as various intra-ocular structures, such as the fovea, are not visible on conventional modalities such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). However, the use of fundus photographs in OPT is limited, as the eye's optics induce a nonuniform patient-specific deformation to the images. PURPOSE: To develop a method to accurately map fundus photographs to three-dimensional images.
methodsPersonalized optical raytracing simulations were performed for 27 subjects, using subject-specific eye models based on corneal topography, biometry, and MRI. Light rays were traced through the eye for angles of 0°-85° with respect to the optical axis, in steps of 5°. These simulations provided a reference mapping between camera angles and retinal locations and were used to develop a mapping method without raytracing. The accuracy of this and earlier proposed methods was evaluated. Finally, the most accurate method was implemented in RayOcular, an image-based OPT planning system, and the fundus photography-based tumor contour was compared with MRI.
resultsWhen a patient-specific second nodal point is taken as a reference to describe the retinal location, the camera, and retinal angles show a strong linear relation with a small variation between subjects. At a camera angle of 60°, for example, a corresponding retinal angle of 59.9° ± 0.4° (mean ± SD) was found. When this linear relation is used to predict the corresponding retinal location (without raytracing) of a camera angle of 40°, the mean (Euclidian distance) error in the retinal location was 0.02 mm (SD = 0.06 mm), which was significantly (p < 0.001) lower than earlier proposed methods including EYEPLAN 4.16 mm (SD = 0.25 mm), the Lamberth projection -0.12 mm (SD = 0.46 mm) or polar projection 0.26 mm (SD = 0.57 mm). When implemented in the fundus view of RayOcular, the median distance between contours based on MRI and fundus photography was 0.2 mm (IQR = 0.1-0.3 mm).
conclusionsThe second nodal point provides a patient-specific reference for an accurate mapping of fundus photographs to three-dimensional images with sub-millimeter errors.
Indexed as
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.