Systemic Complement Activation Profiles in Nonexudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topic: To evaluate whether differences exist in systemic complement activation profiles in patients with early to intermediate nonexudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) or geographic atrophy (GA) compared with control participants without AMD. Clinical Relevance: Complement inhibition has emerged as a therapeutic strategy for GA, although clinical trials to date have yielded mixed results. Despite these efforts, no clear consensus exists regarding what portions of the complement pathway are dysregulated in AMD or when this dysregulation occurs relative to AMD stage. Although past studies have compared systemic complement activation profiles in patients with AMD versus in control participants without AMD, differences in AMD case definition and differing analytical approaches complicate their interpretation. Methods: We performed a systematic review by identifying articles from database inception through October 11, 2020, that reported systemic complement activation profiles in patients with early or intermediate nonexudative AMD or GA versus control participants without AMD by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa score. Results: The 8 reviewed studies included 2131 independent participants. Most studies report significantly higher systemic levels of products associated with complement activation and significantly lower systemic levels of products associated with complement inhibition in patients with early and advanced nonexudative AMD compared with control participants without AMD. Discussion: Evidence suggests that systemic complement overactivation is a feature of early or intermediate and advanced nonexudative AMD. However, given significant heterogeneity, these findings are not conclusive and warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".