ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Uveal Pigmented Lesion Classification, Detection, and Segmentation: A Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Tasks.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Deep Learning Optimisation Strategies for Uveal Melanoma Detection Using Ultra-Widefield Photography.Research square · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common intraocular malignancy in adults, with high metastatic risk and poor prognosis. Current screening and triaging methods for melanocytic choroidal tumors face inherent limitations, particularly in regions with limited access to specialized ocular oncologists. This study proposes a reference framework for future research in UM detection. It highlights the trade-offs between different computer vision (CV) approaches based on data availability, computer resources, annotation effort, and clinical applicability. Methods: In total, 864 Optos images of UM, choroidal nevi, and congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium were included in the study. Three CV models-classification, detection, and segmentation-were implemented using a shared ResNet-50 backbone. Performance metrics included area under the curve (AUC) for classification, F1 score for detection, and Dice score for segmentation. An ablation study evaluated robustness to data scarcity. Model interpretability was enhanced through Grad-CAM visualizations and confusion matrices. Results: Classification, detection, and segmentation achieved AUC scores of 94%, 93%, and 95%, respectively. Segmentation showed the best F1 score (89%) and a Dice score of 75%. Classification performed the best with limited data. Conclusions: In high-resource scenarios (100+ images), all models performed similarly, while in low-resource scenarios (<70 images), the classification model outperformed the others. This suggests that simpler models may offer better value for classification tasks with limited resources. Translational Relevance: Given different CV algorithms' different clinical use cases and development costs, this study takes a comparative look at these algorithms for the task of UM analysis on ultra-widefield fundus images.
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.