Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41518381›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026

Utilizing artificial intelligence for the diagnosis of ocular surface squamous neoplasia with ultrasound biomicroscopy images.

Kubra Serbest Ceylanoglu, Zhao Zhenyang, Bernadete Ayres, Yike Li, Hakan Demirci

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Review of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology Imaging: Approximation to Ocular Histopathology.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kubra Serbest CeylanogluDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Health Sciences, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Türkiye, Turkey.
Zhao ZhenyangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, 1000 Wall Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA.
Bernadete AyresDepartment of Ophthalmology, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, 1000 Wall Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA.
Yike LiDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1215 21 st Avenue South, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. yike.li.1@vumc.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8465-130X
Hakan DemirciDepartment of Ophthalmology, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, 1000 Wall Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA. hdemirci@med.umich.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1593-1476

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model to assist ophthalmologists in distinguishing ocular surface squamous neoplasia (OSSN) from benign ocular surface lesions using ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) images.

methodsData were retrospectively collected from 139 patients with biopsy-proven conjunctival lesions, including 201 UBM images of benign lesions (e.g.,pterygium, squamous papilloma) and 381 images of OSSN (e.g.,squamous cell carcinoma, conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia). Patients with conjunctival pigmented lesions, melanoma, lymphoma, or those without a pathological diagnosis were excluded. UBM images were cropped to the anterior segment region and rescaled to a standard size of 300 × 200 pixels. Data augmentation techniques were applied to enhance the diversity of training images. A convolutional neural network was trained and tested using five-fold cross-validation. A heatmap was generated to illustrate the model's decision-making process. The AI model's performance was compared to that of three human experts with varying levels of experience. Additionally, univariate regression analysis was performed to assess the impact of patient-related factors (age, sex, race/ethnicity, lesion location, and side) on model performance.

resultsOur AI model achieved an accuracy of 74.3 ± 3.9%, sensitivity of 75.0 ± 8.6%, specificity 73.0 ± 11.5%, precision of 83.3 ± 4.8%, F1 score (i.e., the harmonic mean of precision and recall) of 0.79 ± 0.06,and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of 0.83 ± 0.03 in detection of OSSN. It significantly outperformed two ocular oncology fellows (p = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively) and demonstrated borderline significance compared to a senior ophthalmologist (p = 0.05). The heatmaps effectively highlighted the lesions, suggesting that echogenicity played a crucial role in the model's predictions. None of the patient-related factors significantly affected model performance (all p > 0.1), supporting its equitable diagnostic capability across diverse patient groups.

conclusionThis study demonstrates the feasibility of using AI to differentiate OSSN from benign conjunctival lesions based on UBM images. The heatmap enhances model transparency, and the consistent performance across patient subgroups highlights its potential as a fair and valuable tool for clinical decision-making in ocular surface tumor evaluation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCarcinoma, Squamous CellConjunctivaConjunctival NeoplasmsMicroscopy, AcousticAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyConvolutional Neural NetworksDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsArtificial intelligenceConjunctival intraepithelial neoplasiaConjunctival squamous cell carcinomaConvolution neural networkOcular surface tumor

Identifiers

PMID41518381
PMCPMC13002716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.