MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017314392 · doi:10.1136/bmj.e4203

Adverse events with intravitreal injection of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors: nested case-control study

2012· article· en· W2017314392 on OpenAlex
Chaim M. Bell, S.S. Gill, Susan E. Bronskill, J. Michael Paterson, Marlo Whitehead

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalSt Mary's Hospital CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesKingston General HospitalMcMaster UniversityQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineStroke (engine)Odds ratioCardiologyNested case-control studyRisk factorPopulationConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of systemic adverse events associated with intravitreal injections of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibiting drugs. DESIGN: Population based nested case-control study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 91,378 older adults with a history of physician diagnosed retinal disease identified between 1 April 2006 and 31 March 2011. Cases were 1477 patients admitted to hospital for ischaemic stroke, 2229 admitted for an acute myocardial infarction, 1059 admitted or assessed in an emergency department for venous thromboembolism, and 2623 admitted for congestive heart failure. Event-free controls (at a ratio of 5:1) were matched to cases on the basis of year of birth, sex, history of the outcome in the previous 5 years, and diabetes. MAIN EXPOSURE MEASURE: Exposure to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibiting drugs identified within 180 days before the index date. RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounders, participants who had ischaemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or venous thromboembolism were not more likely than control participants to have been exposed to either bevacizumab (adjusted odds ratios of 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.34) for ischaemic stroke, 1.04 (0.77 to 1.39) for acute myocardial infarction, 0.81 (0.49 to 1.34) for venous thromboembolism, and 1.21 (0.91 to 1.62) for congestive heart failure) or ranibizumab (adjusted odds ratios 0.87 (0.68 to 1.10) for ischaemic stroke, 0.90 (0.72 to 1.11) for acute myocardial infarction, 0.88 (0.67 to 1.16) for venous thromboembolism, and 0.87 (0.70 to 1.07) for congestive heart failure). Similarly, a secondary analysis of exclusive users of bevacizumab or ranibizumab showed no differences in risk between the two drugs (adjusted odds ratios for bevacizumab relative to ranibizumab of 1.03 (0.67 to 1.60) for ischaemic stroke, 1.23 (0.85 to 1.77) for acute myocardial infarction, 0.92 (0.51 to 1.69) for venous thromboembolism, and 1.35 (0.93 to 1.95) for congestive heart failure). These findings were consistent for all but one outcome in subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal injections of bevacizumab and ranibizumab were not associated with significant risks of ischaemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or venous thromboembolism.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.269 · 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