MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatments for dry age-related macular degeneration: therapeutic avenues, clinical trials and future directions

2021· review· en· W3138156139 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thales A. C. de Guimarães, Malena Daich Varela, Michalis Georgiou, Michel Michaelides

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Ophthalmology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIH Clinical CenterNational Institutes of HealthRetina UKApellis PharmaceuticalsNational Eye InstituteMoorfields Eye CharityWellcome TrustWellcomeGlaxoSmithKlineFoundation Fighting BlindnessPfizer
KeywordsMacular degenerationMedicineClinical trialBevacizumabBlindnessDiseaseRanibizumabBioinformaticsIntensive care medicineOphthalmologyPathologyInternal medicineOptometryChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of irreversible blindness in the developed world. The identification of the central role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in the pathogenesis of neovascular AMD and the introduction of anti-VEGF agents as gold-standard treatment, have drastically changed its prognosis-something yet to be seen in dry AMD. Several therapeutic avenues with a wide variability of targets are currently being investigated in dry AMD. The approaches being investigated to reduce the rate of disease progression include, (1) drugs with antioxidative properties, (2) inhibitors of the complement cascade, (3) neuroprotective agents, (4) visual cycle inhibitors, (5) gene therapy and (6) cell-based therapies. A number of early phase clinical trials have provided promising results, with many more ongoing and anticipated in the near future. In this review, we aim to provide an update of the interventional trials to date and future prospects for the treatment of dry AMD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations180
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of OphthalmologySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207