The Impact of Residual Retinal Fluid Following Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema and Macular Edema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association between residual retinal fluid and visual acuity for diabetic macular edema (DME) and macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is not well established. We conducted a systematic literature search for peer-reviewed articles reporting on visual acuity stratified by subretinal fluid (SRF), intraretinal fluid (IRF), or any retinal fluid at final follow-up after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy injection for treatment of DME or ME secondary to RVO. Two observational studies on ME secondary to RVO and one study for DME found no significant differences between eyes with and without residual retinal fluid for final BCVA. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) found that eyes with residual retinal fluid had significantly worse final best-corrected visual acuity in ME secondary to RVO, whereas another RCT found no significant difference for DME. There is a paucity of evidence examining the impact of residual retinal fluid on visual acuity in DME and ME secondary to RVO. The limited evidence suggests that aggressive fluid resolution is worthwhile. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54:50–58.]
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".