ArticleInternational ophthalmology2026
Coordinate-conditioned feature enhancement and progressive distance-field boundary supervision for pterygium segmentation in anterior segment images.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePixel-wise segmentation of pterygium lesions provides a basis for quantitative assessment of lesion area, the extent of corneal involvement, and morphological changes. However, the relatively small lesion area, limited local texture contrast, and indistinct interface between the pterygium head and the cornea can lead to incomplete segmentation and contour displacement. This study aimed to develop a fully automatic segmentation method that improves both lesion-region identification and boundary localization.
methodsWe developed an improved DeepLabV3+ framework with Xception as the backbone. An implicit neural representation (INR)-inspired coordinate-conditioned feature enhancement (CCFE) module was inserted between the backbone and the atrous spatial pyramid pooling module to jointly model spatial coordinates and high-level semantic features. Training employed a progressive mixed loss comprising Focal Loss, Dice Loss, and distance-field Boundary Loss. The model was evaluated on 303 anterior-segment images and compared with representative segmentation models from multiple methodological categories. All experiments were independently repeated using five different random seeds.
resultsThe proposed method achieved an mIoU of 93.26 ± 0.22%, a foreground IoU of 89.34 ± 0.39%, an HD95 of 11.51 ± 0.58 pixels, and a Boundary F1 score of 0.4923 ± 0.0046, yielding the best mean performance across all four metrics among the compared models. Compared with Swin-UMamba, the strongest competing model overall, the proposed method improved mIoU and foreground IoU by 1.84-3.78 percentage points, respectively, reduced HD95 by 6.71 pixels, and increased Boundary F1 by 0.0525. Ablation experiments showed that coordinate-conditioned feature enhancement and progressive boundary supervision each independently improved segmentation performance, while their combination further improved foreground coverage and reduced large local contour deviations.
conclusionBy supplementing high-level features with spatial information and progressively strengthening boundary-distance constraints during training, the proposed method improved both pterygium-region segmentation and localization of indistinct boundaries. The resulting pixel-wise segmentation may provide a basis for subsequent lesion measurement and morphological analysis. However, its generalizability across institutions and imaging devices requires further validation using independent external datasets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42665735What 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.