<p>Loteprednol etabonate (submicron) ophthalmic gel 0.38% dosed three times daily following cataract surgery: integrated analysis of two Phase III clinical studies</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a submicron formulation of loteprednol etabonate (LE) gel 0.38% instilled three times daily (TID) compared with vehicle for the treatment of inflammation and pain following cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation, integrated across two multicenter, double-masked, randomized, parallel-group, Phase III studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects ≥18 years of age with anterior chamber (AC) cells ≥grade 2 (6-15 cells) on day 1 after cataract surgery were randomized to receive 1 drop of LE gel 0.38% TID, twice daily (not reported/analyzed herein), or vehicle instilled in the study eye for 14 days. Primary endpoints were the proportion of subjects with resolution of AC cells and grade 0 (no) pain at postoperative day 8. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs), ocular signs, fundoscopy results, visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), and tolerability (drop comfort and ocular symptoms). RESULTS: <0.0001 for both). LE gel 0.38% TID was safe and well tolerated, with only 1 LE-treated subject experiencing an IOP elevation ≥10 mm Hg. Most treatment-related AEs were mild and occurred less frequently with LE gel 0.38% than with vehicle. The majority (>75%) of subjects in each treatment group reported no drop discomfort. There were no reports of blurred vision with LE gel. CONCLUSION: The results of this integrated analysis indicate that LE (submicron) gel 0.38% administered TID is safe and effective for the treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following cataract surgery, with minimal risk of IOP elevation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".