MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159164686 · doi:10.1111/aos.14891

Changes in aqueous and vitreous inflammatory cytokine levels in diabetic macular oedema: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021· review· en· W3159164686 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel A. Minaker, Ryan H. Mason, Gabriela Lahaie Luna, Armin Farahvash, Anubhav Garg, Nishaant Bhambra, Priya Bapat, Rajeev H. Muni

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Ophthalmologica · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityKensington HealthUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCytokineOphthalmologyMeta-analysisBiomarkerInterleukin 6Aqueous humorDiabetic retinopathyGastroenterologyInternal medicineRanibizumabDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyBevacizumabChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetic macular oedema (DME) is considered a chronic inflammatory disease associated with aberrations in many intraocular cytokines. Studies assessing the role of these cytokines as biomarkers in the diagnosis and management of DME have demonstrated inconsistent findings. We quantitatively summarized data related to 116 candidate aqueous and vitreous inflammatory cytokines as biomarkers in DME. A systematic search without year limitation was performed up to 19 October 2020. Studies were included if they provided data on aqueous or vitreous cytokine concentrations in patients with DME. Effect sizes were generated as standardized mean differences (SMDs) of cytokine concentrations between patients with DME and controls. Data were extracted from 128 studies that included 4163 study eyes with DME and 1281 control eyes. Concentrations (standard mean difference, 95% confidence interval and p-value) of aqueous IL-6 (1.28, 0.57-2.00, p = 0.004), IL-8 (1.06, 0.74-1.39, p < 0.00001), MCP-1 (1.36, 0.57-2.16, p = 0.0008) and VEGF (1.31, 1.01-1.62, p < 0.00001) and vitreous VEGF (2.27, 1.55-2.99, p < 0.00001) were significantly higher in patients with DME (n = 4163) compared to healthy controls (n = 1281). No differences, failed sensitivity analyses or insufficient data were found between patients with DME and healthy controls for the concentrations of the remaining cytokines. This analysis implicates multiple cytokine biomarker candidates other than VEGF in DME and clarifies previously reported inconsistent associations. As the therapeutic options for DME expand to include multiple agents with multiple targets, it will be critical to manage the treatment burden with tailored therapy that optimizes outcomes and minimizes treatment burden. Intraocular cytokines have the promise of providing a robust individualized assessment of disease status and response to therapy. We have identified key candidate cytokines that may serve as biomarkers in individualized treatment algorithms.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.024
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OphthalmologicaSame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207