ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Validation of a Portable Tool for Conjunctival Ultraviolet Autofluorescence Imaging.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeConjunctival ultraviolet autofluorescence (CUVAF) is an objective biomarker of ocular sun exposure, aiding in the assessment of ophthalmohelioses and other UV-related eye conditions. However, conventional CUVAF imaging requires a bulky and costly benchtop digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera system. This study evaluates the validity of a smartphone-based clip-on tool as a portable, affordable alternative for CUVAF imaging.
methods95 participants were recruited from an ophthalmology clinic in Sydney, Australia. Nasal and temporal conjunctival images were captured using both DSLR-based and smartphone-based systems. CUVAF was quantified using two parameters: area ratio (CUVAF area relative to visible sclera) and intensity ratio (CUVAF mean intensity relative to adjacent background). Agreement between systems were assessed using Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsThe mean age of participants was 58 ± 14 years, with 42% identifying as male. CUVAF area ratios were slightly higher in smartphone images (0.037 ± 0.03) compared to DSLR (0.022 ± 0.02, p < 0.01). Intensity ratios showed no significant difference between systems (smartphone: 1.35 ± 0.24, DSLR: 1.37 ± 0.28, p = 0.43). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated good agreement, with mean differences of - 0.014 for area and 0.041 for intensity.
conclusionsThe smartphone-based CUVAF imaging tool demonstrates strong agreement with the gold-standard DSLR system, supporting its potential for clinical and field-based assessment of ocular UV exposure. Slight differences in measured CUVAF area are likely attributable to inherent differences in optical geometry and magnification between the two devices, not underlying biological variation.
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.