Systemic effects of intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The development of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors has revolutionized the treatment of retinal diseases. However, VEGF functions in many physiological and pathological processes. Consequently, inhibition of this signalling molecule carries the potential to cause serious adverse events. RECENT FINDINGS: Numerous clinical trials, meta-analyses and population-based studies have provided data regarding the safety of intravitreal VEGF inhibitor injections. Although individual trials and some meta-analyses have not found significant risks, other meta-analyses have suggested possible risks, especially in patients with multiple baseline risk factors. Population-based studies have not found increased risks of vascular adverse events. SUMMARY: Overall, results across studies with differing methodologies provide some reassurance that the widespread use of intravitreal injections of VEGF inhibitors has not resulted in significant increases in the risks of adverse events. However, ongoing vigilance and further study remain priorities, with a particular need for greater evaluation of high-risk subgroups. Rapidly evolving treatment options for ocular diseases including new drugs and new delivery technologies will require ongoing evaluations of safety.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".