SynthesisTranslational vision science & technology2026
Artificial Intelligence-Driven Differentiation Between Uveal Melanoma and Nevus Based on Fundus Photographs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Translational vision science & technology, 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
Background: Distinguishing uveal melanoma (UM) from uveal nevus (UN) is often challenging yet crucial for appropriate management. Machine learning (ML), particularly deep learning (DL), has emerged as a promising solution to this binary classification task. This study aimed to examine the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) models to differentiate UM from UN based on fundus photographs. Methods: We systematically searched four databases through July 6, 2025, for studies developing ML models for distinguishing UM from UN using fundus photographs as input. The risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. The results of primary studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Our review included seven articles with 6208 participants in total. Six studies used DL and one applied conventional ML. Only two studies conducted external validation. The proposed algorithms demonstrated a strong performance, achieving a pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.915, 85.3%, 83.7%, and 87.7%, respectively. In subgroup analysis, externally validated models retained a promising discriminative ability with a subtotal pooled AUC of 0.873. Conclusions: ML algorithms showcase consistently high performance in differentiating UM from UN based on fundus photographs, supporting their potential role as adjunctive tools in clinical practice. Their objective, reproducible assessments may improve referrals, guide clinical decision-making, and boost diagnostic confidence across health care providers. However, existing evidence is highly heterogeneous and constrained by small dataset sizes and limited external validation. Addressing these gaps through multicenter collaborations and data-sharing initiatives could yield more accurate, robust, and generalizable models. Translational Relevance: This work bridges computational research and ophthalmologic care by demonstrating the potential of AI-based analysis of fundus photographs to assist in differentiating uveal melanocytic tumors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.