MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200420596 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049976

Two-step versus 1-step subretinal injection to compare subretinal drug delivery: a randomised study protocol

2021· article· en· W4200420596 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Matthew P. Simunovic, Emily H. Shao, Perach Osaadon, Muhammad Bayu Sasongko, Lay Khoon Too

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFoundation Fighting Blindness
KeywordsMedicineVitrectomyBevacizumabOphthalmologyMacular degenerationSurgeryDrug deliveryClinical trialVisual acuityChemotherapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing interest in subretinal injections as a surgical procedure, largely as a result of emerging treatments for ocular diseases which necessitate this manoeuvre. However, surgical variables in the efficacy of such treatments have to date been largely overlooked and the proportion of drug which reaches the intended compartment of the subretinal space remains unknown. Our aims are twofold: first, to determine the proportion of subretinally injected medication retained following surgical delivery and second, to compare two different techniques of injection ('1-step' vs '2-step'). METHODS: We outline a randomised controlled trial of subretinal injection of alteplase following vitrectomy for the management of submacular haemorrhage secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Patients will be randomised to receive either 1-step injection, where the therapeutic solution simultaneously defines the surgical plane or 2-step injection, where the surgical plane is first identified with balanced salt solution prior to injection of subretinal alteplase, as outlined below. Sodium fluorescein will be used as an optical label to track drug reflux into the vitreous cavity using quantitative protocols established in our laboratory. All patients will undergo fluid air exchange at the completion of surgery, with injection of bevacizumab 1.25 mg and 20% sulfahexafluoride gas as the vitreous substitute (both of which may help improve outcomes). Alteplase, sodium fluorescein and bevacizumab will all be used for off-label indications in the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District's Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC 17/092). The results of this trial will be disseminated in peer-reviewed proceedings (associated with conference presentation) and in scholarly journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619001121156.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0110.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.010

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207