Comparing interventions for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: A network meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare efficacy of treatments for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) > 3 months. Four treatment classes were considered: photodynamic therapy (PDT), subthreshold laser therapies (SLT), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) and antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents. Pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA) of the primary outcomes (complete resolution of subretinal fluid (SRF), mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA as logMAR) and mean change in SRF) and secondary outcomes (mean change in central retinal thickness, and central choroidal thickness (μm), recurrence of SRF, and adverse events) at 3, 6, and 12 months were compared. Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) informed the certainty of NMA evidence. Eleven RCTs of 458 eyes (450 patients) were included. NMA at 3 months showed that both PDT and SLT were superior to control for resolution of SRF (OR 4.83; 95% CI 1.72-13.55 and 2.27; 1.14-4.49, respectively) and SLT was superior to control for improving BCVA (MD -0.10; -0.17 to -0.04). PDT was superior to SLT for improving CRT (MD -42.88; -75.27 to -10.50). On probability ranking, PDT and SLT were consistently the best-ranked treatments for each outcome at 3 months, but low confidence of evidence and paucity of studies preclude definitive conclusions.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it