The route of administration influences the therapeutic index of an anti-proNGF neutralizing mAb for experimental treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many neurodegenerative retinal diseases are treated with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) delivered by invasive intravitreal injection (IVT). In Diabetic Retinopathy there is a scarcity of effective agents that can be delivered using non-invasive methods, and there are significant challenges in the validation of novel therapeutic targets. ProNGF represents a potential novel target, and IVT administration of a function-blocking anti-proNGF mAb is therapeutic in a mouse model of DR. We therefore compared invasive IVT to less invasive systemic intravenous (IV) and local subconjunctival (SCJ) administration, for therapy of Diabetic Retinopathy. The IV and SCJ routes are safe, afford sustained pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of anti-proNGF mAb, and result in long-term therapeutic efficacy that blocks retinal inflammation, edema, and neuronal death. SCJ may be a more convenient and less-invasive approach for ophthalmic use and may enable reduced frequency of intervention for the treatment of retinal pathologies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".