Ocular Toxicity of Targeted Therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecularly targeted agents are commonly used in oncology practice, and many new targeted agents are currently being tested in clinical trials. Although these agents are thought to be more specific and less toxic then traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy, they are associated with a variety of toxicities, including ocular toxicity. Many of the molecules targeted by anticancer agents are also expressed in ocular tissues. We reviewed the literature for described ocular toxicities associated with both approved and investigational molecularly targeted agents. Ocular toxicity has been described with numerous approved targeted agents and also seems to be associated with several classes of agents currently being tested in early-phase clinical trials. We discuss the proposed pathogenesis, monitoring guidelines, and management recommendations. It is important for oncologists to be aware of the potential for ocular toxicity, with prompt recognition of symptoms that require referral to an ophthalmologist. Ongoing collaboration between oncologists and ocular disease specialists is critical as the use of molecularly targeted agents continues to expand and novel targeted drug combinations are developed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".