IMPACT OF FLUID COMPARTMENTS ON FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES FOR PATIENTS WITH NEOVASCULAR AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Understanding the impact of fluid in different retinal compartments is critical to developing treatment paradigms that optimize visual acuity and reduce treatment burden in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of persistent/new subretinal fluid, intraretinal fluid, and subretinal pigment epithelial fluid on visual acuity over 1 year of treatment. METHODS: Publication eligibility and data extraction were conducted according to Cochrane methods: 27 of the 1,797 screened records were eligible. RESULTS: Intraretinal fluid negatively affected visual acuity at baseline and throughout treatment, with foveal intraretinal fluid associated with lower visual acuity than extrafoveal intraretinal fluid. Some studies found that subretinal fluid (particularly subfoveal) was associated with higher visual acuity at Year 1 and longer term, and others suggested subretinal fluid did not affect visual acuity at Years 1 and 2. Data on the effects of subretinal pigment epithelial fluid were scarce, and consensus was not reached. Few studies reported numbers of injections associated with fluid status. CONCLUSION: To optimally manage neovascular age-related macular degeneration, clinicians should understand the impact of fluid compartments on visual acuity. After initial treatment, antivascular endothelial growth factor regimens that tolerate stable subretinal fluid (if visual acuity is stable/improved) but not intraretinal fluid may enable patients to achieve their best possible visual acuity. Confirmatory studies are required to validate these findings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".