Evidence-based vitamin supplements for age-related macular degeneration: an analysis of available products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A wide range of supplements are available for age-related macular degeneration (AMD); however, clinicians may not be aware of which supplements contain an evidence-based formula. BACKGROUND: Vitamin and antioxidant supplementation has been shown to be effective in slowing the progression of AMD. The Age-Related Eye Disease Studies (AREDS) group reported an evidence-based formula in the AREDS 2 trials. Commercially available products carry varying degrees of resemblance to this formula. METHODS: A review of commercially available supplements in pharmacies and websites across Australasia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada was undertaken. Supplements containing all the ingredients of the AREDS 2 recipe were included. The dose, formulation, and cost of the supplements were reviewed. RESULTS: Sixty-six products were reviewed. Forty-three products contained all the AREDS 2 ingredients and were therefore included for analysis. Twenty products contained all ingredients at 100% or more of the recommended dose, and 23 products contained some ingredients at a lower dose. The cost of the products varied from Australian dollar (AUD) $0.12 to AUD $6.72 per day. Seven (35%) products were available online only and 13 (65%) products were available both online and in pharmacies. Eight products were available in the United States pharmacies, five products were available in Canadian pharmacies, three products were available in the United Kingdom pharmacies, and one product was available in Australasian pharmacies. CONCLUSIONS: Commercially available AMD supplements vary widely in price and resemblance to the AREDS 2 formulation. Clinician awareness of this information is important when counselling patients on which supplement is most suitable. The categorisation of products in Table 1 may assist with patient counselling of vitamin supplementation for 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 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 | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".