MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298021796 · doi:10.1517/14712598.2016.1167868

Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor use and treatment approach for choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathologic myopia

2016· review· en· W2298021796 on OpenAlexaff
Kaivon Pakzad-Vaezi, Hemal Mehta, Zaid Mammo, Adnan Tufail

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAfliberceptRanibizumabMedicineMacular degenerationChoroidal neovascularizationOphthalmologyVascular endothelial growth factorBevacizumabSurgeryVEGF receptorsInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Myopic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) is the most common cause of CNV in those under 50 years of age. It is a significant cause of visual loss in those with pathologic myopia. The current standard of care involves therapy with intravitreal inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). AREAS COVERED: The epidemiology of myopia, high myopia, pathologic myopia, and myopic CNV is reviewed, along with a brief discussion of historical treatments. The pharmacology of the three most commonly used anti-VEGF agents is discussed, with an emphasis on the licensed drugs, ranibizumab and aflibercept. A comprehensive clinical approach to diagnosis and treatment of myopic CNV is presented. EXPERT OPINION: The current standard of care for myopic CNV is intravitreal inhibition of VEGF, with ranibizumab and aflibercept licensed for intraocular use. The diagnosis, OCT features of disease activity and retreatment algorithm for myopic CNV is different from wet age-related macular degeneration. In the long-term, myopic CNV may be associated with gradual, irreversible visual loss due to progressive chorioretinal atrophy, for which there is currently no treatment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207