The use of intravitreal corticosteroids, evidence-based and otherwise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide a current update on the use of intravitreal corticosteroids as a treatment for a variety of retinal diseases. RECENT FINDINGS: Pharmacokinetic studies demonstrate that a single 4 mg injection of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide is present in the vitreous for up to 3 months. Many recent studies demonstrate a significant reduction in macular edema often with a significant improvement in vision for up to several months followed by a waning of treatment effect and recurrence of macular edema. Retreatments have been shown to be efficacious. Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide may help lead to a reduction in subfoveal hard exudates in diffuse diabetic macular edema. It has been shown to be a more potent treatment than sub-Tenon's and retrobulbar triamcinolone acetonide for persistent macular edema. It may also be a significant adjunctive treatment for choroidal neovascularization treated with photodynamic therapy. Intravitreal corticosteroid implants have also been shown to be beneficial in early trials for persistent macular edema. SUMMARY: Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide provides a potent short-term treatment for persistent macular edema and may be a useful adjunctive treatment for choroidal neovascularization. It remains to be determined whether intravitreal corticosteroids can provide long-term visual gain or stabilization. The side-effect profile of intravitreal corticosteroids is significant with corticosteroid-induced intraocular pressure rises. With longer-term studies, the rate of posterior subcapsular cataract formation is higher than previously reported, and there is a small but potential risk of endophthalmitis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".