ArticleResearch square2026
Deep Learning Optimisation Strategies for Uveal Melanoma Detection Using Ultra-Widefield Photography.
Article in Research square, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults and carries significant metastatic risk. Early and accurate diagnosis is essential, but challenging due to overlapping clinical features with benign choroidal nevi. Deep learning (DL) offers potential to support early and accessible detection, but model performance is limited by dataset size and quality. This study evaluates data-centric optimisation strategies for DL classification of UM using ultra-widefield (UWF) fundus photography. Methods: This retrospective study analysed UWF fundus photographs from 784 patients (864 images) seen at the University of Illinois Chicago eye clinic. A baseline binary classification model (UM vs. choroidal nevus) was compared with seven models incorporating optimisation strategies across three categories: class addition, dataset augmentation, and enhanced feature selection. Performance was assessed using AUC, F1 score, precision, and recall, with calibration evaluated via expected calibration error. Results: The baseline model achieved an AUC of 0.906 ± 0.032. The top-performing model incorporated healthy retinal controls as an additional class, achieving an AUC of 0.987 ± 0.011 and F1 scores of 0.966 (nevus) and 0.941 (UM). Dataset augmentation approaches yielded minimal performance gain, and Multi-strategy models showed no additive benefit. Conclusions: Data-centric optimisation significantly influences DL performance for UM detection. Three principles emerge: healthy class addition improves specificity and anatomical feature learning; data quality may outweigh quantity; and contextual input tuning is a key model parameter. These findings offer a practical framework for developing clinically robust, physician-supervised AI tools to support early UM triage and reduce diagnostic variability.
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.