Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41999415›Full record

ReviewGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026

Imaging-based machine learning for the diagnosis and prognosis of uveal melanoma: a systematic review and meta analysis.

Andres Bravo-Gonzalez, Pablo Dominguez-Ruiz, Maria J Buitrago-Gonzalez, Bernardo Bach, Zhi Chen, Daniel Suarez, Mateus Pimenta Arruda, Rian Vilar Lima, Giulia Steuernagel Del Valle, Mariana Tosato Zinher and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Andres Bravo-GonzalezUniversidad del Rosario, Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Bogotá, Colombia. andres.bravog@urosario.edu.co.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6744-8529
Pablo Dominguez-RuizClínica CardioVID, Medellín, Colombia.
Maria J Buitrago-GonzalezUniversidad CES, Medellín, Colombia.
Bernardo BachOphthalmology Division, Hospital de Clínicas (Universidade Federal do Paraná), Curitiba, Brazil.
Zhi ChenIowa Institute for Biomedical Imaging, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA.
Daniel SuarezFundación Oftalmológica Nacional, Bogotá, Colombia.
Mateus Pimenta ArrudaDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Rian Vilar LimaHealth Science Center, Universidade de Fortaleza, Fortaleza, Brazil.
Giulia Steuernagel Del ValleHospital de Olhos do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Mariana Tosato ZinherOphthalmology Division, Hospital de Clínicas (Universidade Federal do Paraná), Curitiba, Brazil.
Carlos Eduardo de Menezes E Souza FilhoOphthalmology Division, Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Belo Horizonte, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Pedro F SalazarFundación Oftalmológica Nacional, Bogotá, Colombia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUveal melanoma (UM) is the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults and carries a high risk of metastasis and poor prognosis when diagnosed late. Distinguishing UM from benign choroidal nevi remains challenging due to overlapping imaging features. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models have emerged as tools to improve diagnostic accuracy and prognostic prediction, but their generalizability and clinical readiness remain uncertain. PURPOSE: To systematically review and meta-analyze the performance of published ML/DL algorithms using ocular imaging on detecting and predicting prognosis of UM.

methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and IEEE Xplore up to June 2025 for English and Spanish publications since 2012. Eligible studies applied ML/DL to ocular imaging and reported diagnostic or prognostic accuracy metrics. Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2, and pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a random-effects meta-analysis, with subgroup analyses by imaging modality (fundus-only vs. ultrasound-based imaging, with or without an additional modality). For diagnostic studies, we additionally synthesized positive and negative likelihood ratios along with diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) and conducted hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) (Reitsma) analyses stratified by modality.

resultsThirteen diagnostic studies met inclusion criteria. Most were retrospective, single-center cohorts using fundus photography, while others employed ultrasound (US), ultra-widefield (UWF), OCT, or autofluorescence. Ten studies used DL architectures, mainly convolutional neural networks or transformers. Pooled sensitivity was 78.21% and specificity 94.28%. Fundus-based models showed lower specificity (87.70%) than US-based models (98.16%). AUC values were consistently high; HSROC AUC was 0.912 (fundus) vs. 0.984 (US; Δ0.073, bootstrap 95% CI − 0.101 to 0.143). The largest modality separation was for LR+ (39.48 vs. 6.16; p < 0.0001), with higher DOR for US (225.25 vs. 27.89; p = 0.0102), while LR − was similar. Six prognostic studies (up to 4,600 patients) reported AUCs between 0.71 and 0.92 for predicting metastasis, survival, or enucleation, though all lacked external validation.

conclusionsML and DL models show strong diagnostic performance and emerging prognostic value in UM. However, reproducibility and real-world validation remain limited. New foundation models such as RETFound and VisionFM, trained on large multimodal eye datasets, could improve standardization, explainability, and cross-center generalization. As these models evolve, they have the potential to become essential tools in clinical practice, accelerating the translation of AI into reliable, routine implementation in ocular oncology. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42025643874).

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceIntraocular tumorsMachine learningOcular oncologyUveal melanoma

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.