Intraocular Pressure Effects and Mechanism of Action of Topical Versus Sustained-Release Bimatoprost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effects of bimatoprost sustained-release implant (BimSR) in normotensive monkeys receiving topical bimatoprost. METHODS: Six eyes from six female, normotensive, cynomolgus monkeys were treated with once-daily topical latanoprost 0.005% plus twice-daily fixed-combination dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5%. At week 5, topical latanoprost was switched to once-daily topical bimatoprost 0.03% and twice-daily dorzolamide 2%/timolol 0.5% was continued. At week 8, BimSR 20 μg was administered intracamerally to three eyes and topical therapy was continued in all eyes. At week 12, all topical therapy was discontinued and animals were monitored for another 4 weeks. IOP was measured with a TonoVet rebound tonometer in nonsedated animals weekly for 16 weeks. RESULTS: Average mean (standard deviation) IOP was 19.8 (1.6) mm Hg at baseline, 15.7 (0.9) mm Hg during treatment with topical latanoprost/dorzolamide/timolol from weeks 1 to 5, and 14.2 (0.5) mm Hg during weeks 6 to 8 after topical latanoprost was switched to topical bimatoprost. After BimSR was added, average mean IOP during weeks 9 to 12 was 10.8 (1.3) mm Hg, a decrease of 3.9 mm Hg compared with the topical-only arm. When topical therapy was discontinued, IOP in BimSR-treated eyes remained below that in unmedicated eyes (15.8 [0.9] vs. 20.2 [0.2] mm Hg at weeks 14-16). CONCLUSIONS: Intracameral BimSR has IOP-lowering effects additive to those of topical bimatoprost, suggesting an additional mechanism of action with intracameral drug delivery. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Compared with topical bimatoprost, intracameral BimSR may have an additional mechanism of action of IOP lowering.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".