Association Between Visual Acuity and Fluid Compartments with Treat-and-Extend Intravitreal Aflibercept in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: An ARIES Post Hoc Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recently, there has been growing interest in exploring the relationship between visual acuity and fluid localization in different retinal compartments. This post hoc analysis of the ARIES study explores the relationship between the presence of intraretinal fluid (IRF) and subretinal fluid (SRF), both at baseline and throughout treatment, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated with intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) in a treat-and-extend regimen. METHODS: ARIES (NCT02581891) was a multicenter, randomized, phase 3b/4 study comparing the efficacy of two IVT-AFL treat-and-extend regimens over 2 years in patients with treatment-naïve nAMD. This post hoc analysis explores the relationship between the presence of SRF/IRF and absolute BCVA (letter score) at baseline and fixed visits. RESULTS: In 210 patients (treat-and-extend treatment arms combined), SRF presence at baseline was associated at every time point with a numerically higher mean BCVA than if absent, with 10 more letters at week 104. IRF presence at baseline was associated at all but one time point with a numerically lower mean BCVA than if absent (week 104, 8-letter difference). Baseline SRF+IRF was associated with lower BCVA (week 104, 7-letter difference) than if only SRF was present, but higher BCVA (week 104, 8-letter difference) than if only IRF was present. Absence of SRF+IRF was not associated with better BCVA at any time point during the study. CONCLUSION: In ARIES, in patients with nAMD treated with IVT-AFL, the presence of SRF was associated with better visual acuity, whereas IRF was associated with poorer visual acuity. The findings of this post hoc analysis suggest that differentiating IRF from SRF may offer better prognostic value in guiding treatment-extension decisions than the use of combined or "any" IRF and SRF. Prospective trials are needed to validate these results and determine their clinical relevance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER (CLINICALTRIALS.GOV): NCT02581891. Association between Visual Acuity and Fluid Compartments with Treat-and-Extend Intravitreal Aflibercept in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: An ARIES Post Hoc Analysis: A Video Abstract (MP4 308264 KB).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".