Effects of subthreshold nanosecond laser therapy in age-related macular degeneration using artificial intelligence (STAR-AI Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate changes in retinal thickness, drusen volume, and visual acuity following subthreshold nanosecond laser (SNL) treatment in patients with age-related macular degeneration (ARMD). DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Patients with intermediate ARMD treated with a single session of SNL (2RT®, Ellex R&D Pty Ltd, Adelaide, Australia) were included. Swept-source optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging (Triton; Topcon Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) was performed within 6 months before and after SNL treatment. Retinal layers were segmented using the artificial intelligence-enabled Orion® software (Voxeleron LLC, San Francisco, USA). The macular region was analyzed according to the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study map. Mean difference and standard deviation in baseline and post-treatment retinal layer thicknesses are reported. RESULTS: 37 eyes from 25 patients were included in this study (mean age 74.7±9.2 years). An average of 51±6 spots were applied around the macula of each study eye, with a mean spot power of 0.33±0.04mJ. Increases in total retinal thickness were observed within the outer temporal and inferior sectors (P<0.05). Within the annulus, there was an increase in thickness of the sub-retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) space [0.88±2.41μm, P = 0.03], defined between the RPE and Bruch's membrane. An increase in thickness of 1.13±2.55μm (P = 0.01) was also noted in the inferior sector of the photoreceptor complex, defined from the inner and outer segment junction to the RPE. Decreases in thickness were observed within the superior sector of the inner nuclear layer (INL) [-1.08±2.55μm, P = 0.01], and within the annulus of the outer nuclear layer (ONL) [-1.44±3.55μm, P = 0.02]. CONCLUSIONS: At 6 months post-SNL treatment, there were sectoral increases in OPL, photoreceptor complex, and sub-RPE space thicknesses and sectoral decreases in INL and ONL thicknesses. This pilot study demonstrates the utility of OCT combined with artificial intelligence-enabled software to track retinal changes that occur following SNL treatment in intermediate ARMD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".