Effectiveness at 1 Year of Monthly versus Variable-Dosing Intravitreal Ranibizumab in the Treatment of Choroidal Neovascularization Secondary to Age-related Macular Degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose To evaluate the visual acuity results of monthly ranibizumab injections compared with a variable-dosing schedule for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Methods A retrospective study that compared two cohorts of consecutive patients. All patients were treatment naive, with baseline visual acuity of 20/400 or better, and completed 12 months of therapy. In the first group all patients received monthly injections. In the other group, after 3 monthly loading doses, a variable-dosing schedule was used, based on a monthly clinical assessment and optical coherence tomography. Results Fifty-six consecutive patients (60 eyes) were included. At 12 months the median number of injections were 12 and 8, respectively, and the mean change in Snellen visual acuity was an improvement of 0.27 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution in the monthly treated group versus 0.21 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution improvement in the variable-dosing group (P = 0.53). In the monthly treated group 96.8% of eyes lost <0.3 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution versus 96.6% of eyes in the variable-dosing group (P = 1.0). Conclusion We were able to show that in our clinical setting patients achieved similar visual acuity results with either monthly injections or with a variable-dosing protocol. There was a trend toward better results with monthly treatment. In our clinical setting, patients achieved similar visual acuity results with either monthly injections or with a variable-dosing protocol. There was a trend toward better results with monthly treatment. We believe that patients should be presented with the evidence and given a choice as to which treatment protocol they would like.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".