MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388791040 · doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2023.10.017

Long-term effect of fluid volumes during the maintenance phase in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: results from Fight Retinal Blindness!

2023· article· en· W4388791040 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gregor S. Reiter, Virgínia Mares, Oliver Leingang, Philipp Fuchs, Hrvoje Bogunović, Daniel Barthelmes, Ursula Schmidt‐Erfurth

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Ophthalmology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacular degenerationMedicineOphthalmologyVisual acuityRetinalRetinal pigment epithelium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of macular fluid volumes (subretinal fluid [SRF], intraretinal fluid [IRF], and pigment epithelium detachment [PED]) after initial treatment on functional and structural outcomes in neovascular age-related macular degeneration in a real-world cohort from Fight Retinal Blindness! METHODS: Treatment-naive neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients from Fight Retinal Blindness! (Zürich, Switzerland) were included. Macular fluid on optical coherence tomography was automatically quantified using an approved artificial intelligence algorithm. Follow-up of macular fluid, number of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatments, effect of fluid volumes after initial treatment (high, top 25%; low, bottom 75%) on best-corrected visual acuity, and development of macular atrophy and fibrosis was investigated over 48 months. RESULTS: A total of 209 eyes (mean age, 78.3 years) were included. Patients with high IRF volumes after initial treatment differed by -2.6 (p = 0.021) and -7.4 letters (p = 0.007) at months 12 and 48, respectively. Eyes with high IRF received significantly more treatments (+1.6 [p < 0.001] and +5.3 [p = 0.002] at months 12 and 48, respectively). Patients with high SRF or PED had comparable best-corrected visual acuity outcomes but received significantly more treatments for SRF (+2.4 [p < 0.001] and +11.4 [p < 0.001] at months 12 and 48, respectively) and PED (+1.2 [p = 0.001] and +7.8 [p < 0.001] at months 12 and 48, respectively). DISCUSSION: Patients with high macular fluid after initial treatment are at risk of losing vision that may not be compensable with higher treatment frequency for IRF. Higher treatment frequency for SRF and PED may result in comparable treatment outcomes. Quantification of macular fluid in all compartments is essential to detect eyes at risk of aggressive disease.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of OphthalmologySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207