Genetic Risk Evaluation in Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatment Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharmacogenetic relationship between CFH haplotypes and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with response to ranibizumab treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study involving 70 treatment-naive nAMD patients. Patients were genotyped for CFH haplotypes and SNPs in the C3, ARMS2, and mtDNA genes. Visual acuity and central macular thickness were assessed at baseline and during 6 monthly follow-up visits. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the association between genotypes and a gain of ≥15 letters at the 6-month endpoint after adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: CFH haplotypes were associated with a gain of ≥15 letters at the 6-month endpoint (p = 0.046). Patients expressing protective haplotypes were more likely to achieve a gain of ≥15 letters relative to the greatly increased risk haplotypes [OR 6.58 (95% CI: 1.37, 31.59)]. CONCLUSION: CFH is implicated in nAMD patient treatment response to ranibizumab.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".