MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

VERTEPORFIN THERAPY IN AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION (VAM): An Open-label Multicenter Photodynamic Therapy Study of 4,435 Patients

2004· article· en· W2407272824 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRetina · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerteporfinMacular degenerationMedicineChoroidal neovascularizationOphthalmologyVisual acuityAdverse effectFluorescein angiographyPhotodynamic therapyClinical trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To provide broad clinical experience and to gather safety data on photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (Visudyne, Novartis AG, Basel, Switzerland), also termed verteporfin therapy, in patients with predominantly classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The Verteporfin in Age-related Macular Degeneration (VAM) Study was designed to provide expanded access to verteporfin therapy after beneficial results for these cases were reported but before regulatory approval in North America. METHODS: This open-label multicenter study from September 1999 through June 2000 enrolled among 222 centers patients 50 years or older in the United States, or 40 years or older in Canada, with age-related macular degeneration and subfoveal CNV with a lesion composition that was predominantly classic CNV on fluorescein angiography. Corrected visual acuity with habitual eyewear in the office setting was 20/40 to 20/200, inclusive. All patients received verteporfin therapy and returned for follow-up every 3 months. At those follow-up examinations, additional courses of treatment were recommended if any fluorescein leakage from CNV was identified. Safety information was collected from patient self-reporting, questioning (in person and by telephone), and physician evaluation. Safety was assessed by evaluating the effect of treatment on corrected distance visual acuity and by evaluating adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 4,435 patients were enrolled of whom 4,051 (91%) completed the study after receiving 6,701 treatments. Most patients received only one treatment in VAM before regulatory approval of verteporfin in the United States and Canada. Three hundred patients (6.8%) experienced an adverse event considered by the treating ophthalmologist to be associated with treatment, including 115 (2.6%) with abnormal or decreased vision, of whom 25 (0.6%) experienced acute severe visual acuity decrease, and 14 (0.3%) with transient infusion-related back pain. Patients were advised to avoid exposure to direct sunlight for 24 hours; however, after verteporfin administration only 2 (0.05%) reported a photosensitivity reaction. An additional course of verteporfin therapy was administered to 1,739 of 2,314 patients (75.2%) who had a month 3 examination that was not their close-out visit and 177 of 266 (66.5%) who had a month 6 examination that was not their close-out visit. CONCLUSIONS: Verteporfin therapy exhibited no additional or new safety concerns. The therapy associated with a low incidence of adverse events when expanded access was provided in a large, open-label, multicenter study, including a low incidence (0.05%) of reported photosensitivity reactions despite a short photosensitivity protection period (24 hours) following verteporfin administration.

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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.298 · 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