ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Discrepancies between Fundus Photography and Multimodal Imaging in Mapping of Choroidal Tumor Borders.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Accurate choroidal tumor border mapping is required for their management. We compared border mapping accuracy between unimodal assessment (color fundus photography [CFP] or scanning laser ophthalmoscopy [SLO]) against a multimodal assessment (CFP, SLO, and OCT) and identified tumor characteristics that affect performance. Design: A cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study. Participants: Sixty-four choroidal lesions (61% nevi, 39% melanomas; median basal diameter 5.65 mm, median thickness 1.85 mm) from 63 patients at tertiary ocular oncology clinics in Victoria, Australia. No separate control group was included. Methods: Two ocular oncologists independently delineated lesion margins on CFP and SLO. Multimodal assessment was established by agreement. Agreement between unimodal and multimodal assessments was quantified using the 95th percentile Hausdorff Distance (HD95). Main Outcome Measures: The HD95 in millimeters between unimodal and multimodal tumor borders. Dice coefficient summary statistics are also provided. Results: Overall, unimodal CFP and SLO assessments had good agreement with multimodal assessments (median HD95 <1 mm for each grader and device). However, HD95 was >2 mm in 5% (grader 1) and 9% (grader 2) of CFP assessments and in 2% (grader 1) and 3% (grader 2) of SLO assessments. Nonpigmented and mixed-pigmented tumors showed significantly higher HD95 than pigmented lesions for most grader-modality pairs, particularly for grader 1 on CFP and SLO ( Conclusions: Choroidal tumor margin assessment was accurate on CFP and SLO as compared with a multimodal assessment that included enhanced-depth imaging OCT (EDI-OCT). However, the borders of a subset of tumors, especially those with reduced pigmentation, were inaccurately determined when using fundus photography alone. Incorporating EDI-OCT into choroidal tumor border mapping may reduce these discrepancies. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.