Automated segmentation for early detection of uveal melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Uveal melanoma is the most common intraocular malignancy in adults. Current screening and triaging methods for melanocytic choroidal tumours face inherent limitations, particularly in regions with limited access to specialized ocular oncologists. This study explores the potential of machine learning to automate tumour segmentation. We develop and evaluate a machine-learning model for lesion segmentation using ultra-wide-field fundus photography. METHOD: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients diagnosed with uveal melanoma, choroidal nevi, or congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigmented epithelium at a tertiary academic medical centre. Included patients had a single ultra-wide-field fundus photograph (Optos PLC, Dunfermline, Fife, Scotland) of adequate quality to visualize the lesion of interest, as confirmed by a single ocular oncologist. These images were used to develop and test a machine-learning algorithm for lesion segmentation. RESULTS: A total of 396 images were used to develop a machine-learning algorithm for lesion segmentation. Ninety additional images were used in the testing data set along with images of 30 healthy control individuals. Of the images with successfully detected lesions, the machine-learning segmentation yielded Dice coefficients of 0.86, 0.81, and 0.85 for uveal melanoma, choroidal nevi, and congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigmented epithelium, respectively. Sensitivities for any lesion detection per image were 1.00, 0.90, and 0.87, respectively. For images without lesions, specificity was 0.93. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a novel machine-learning algorithm's performance, suggesting its potential clinical utility as a widely accessible method of screening choroidal tumours. Additional evaluation methods are necessary to further enhance the model's lesion classification and diagnostic accuracy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".