Reply to Hall J: “Use of the Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for the Treatment of Noninfectious Posterior Uveitis: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial in a Predominantly Asian Population”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I read with interest Dr. Hall’s letter. While the article titled “Use of the Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for the Treatment of Noninfectious Posterior Uveitis (NIPU): 3-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial in a Predominantly Asian Population” [1] clearly identified Retisert® (fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant) 0.59 mg as the marketed product used in the study, we appreciate Dr. Hall’s concern that there may be some potential confusion regarding the features of Retisert compared with those of Iluvien® (fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant) 0.19 mg, as they both contain fluocinolone acetonide as the active ingredient, and we are in support of a letter outlining their differences [2]. However, we disagree with the promotional implication that Iluvien is an “improvement” over Retisert as there are no head-to-head clinical trials comparing these two products to merit that claim. Indeed, in addition to the approval for treatment of chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, clinical studies have shown Retisert to be effective in reducing diabetic macular edema (DME) and improving visual acuity in patients with DME [3]. Retisert has also shown efficacy in the management of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion in small studies [4, 5]. However, as Dr. Hall correctly stated, Retisert is not approved either in the US or in Europe for these latter indications. Baldo Scassellati Sforzolini, MD, PhD, MBA Vice President Development, Eye Care, Valeant Pharmaceuticals Bridgewater, NJ, USA Baldo.Sforzolini@bausch.com
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".