MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013171624 · doi:10.1159/000355569

Cardiac Issues of Noncardiac Drugs: The Rising Story of Avastin in Age-Related Macular Degeneration

2013· review· en· W2013171624 on OpenAlexaff
Alan F. Cruess, Nicholas Giacomantonio

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmologica · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacular degenerationMedicineBevacizumabPharmacovigilanceClinical trialIntensive care medicineDrugPopulationOphthalmologyRanibizumabPharmacologySurgeryInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging safety data, accompanied with recent demographic trends, point to the need for an in-depth review and consideration of potential consequences that might arise from continuing use of bevacizumab (Avastin®) to treat elderly patients presenting with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Although it is expected that lower doses of Avastin used for intravitreal administration and an intact blood-retina barrier would reduce the systemic exposure of the drug, both animal and human studies suggest that this may not be the case. In addition, emerging real-world and clinical trial data continue to point toward compromises in both cardio- and cerebrovascular safety with Avastin. Thus, clinicians are urged to adopt the highest possible standard of care in the treatment of an already fragile AMD population. Furthermore, postmarketing surveillance and pharmacovigilance with intravitreal anti-VEGF inhibitors should remain a priority.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmologicaSame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207