MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399605175 · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2024.06.011

International Classification System for Ocular Complications of Anti-VEGF Agents in Clinical Trials

2024· review· en· W4399605175 on OpenAlexaff
Marko M. Popovic, Michael Balas, Srinivas R. Sadda, David Sarraf, Ryan S. Huang, Sophie J. Bakri, Audina M. Berrocal, Andrew Y. Chang, Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung, Sunir J. Garg, Roxane J. Hillier, Frank G. Holz, Mark W. Johnson, Peter K. Kaiser, Peter J. Kertes, Timothy Y. Y. Lai, Jason Noble, Susanna S. Park, Yannis M. Paulus, Giuseppe Querques, Aleksandra Rachitskaya, Paisan Ruamviboonsuk, Shohista Saidkasimova, Teresa Sandinha, David Steel, Hiroko Terasaki, Christina Y. Weng, Basil K. Williams, Lihteh Wu, Rajeev H. Muni

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodInclusion and exclusion criteriaDelphiRandomized controlled trialInclusion (mineral)LimitingVEGF receptorsClinical trialIntensive care medicineOphthalmologySurgeryInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathologyArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Complications associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF therapies are reported inconsistently in the literature, thus limiting an accurate evaluation and comparison of safety between studies. This study aimed to develop a standardized classification system for anti-VEGF ocular complications using the Delphi consensus process. DESIGN: Systematic review and Delphi consensus process. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five international retinal specialists participated in the Delphi consensus survey. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify complications of intravitreal anti-VEGF agent administration based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-VEGF therapy. A comprehensive list of complications was derived from these studies, and this list was subjected to iterative Delphi consensus surveys involving international retinal specialists who voted on inclusion, exclusion, rephrasing, and addition of complications. Furthermore, surveys determined specifiers for the selected complications. This iterative process helped to refine the final classification system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of retinal specialists who choose to include or exclude complications associated with anti-VEGF administration. RESULTS: After screening 18 229 articles, 130 complications were categorized from 145 included RCTs. Participant consensus via the Delphi method resulted in the inclusion of 91 complications (70%) after 3 rounds. After incorporating further modifications made based on participant suggestions, such as rewording certain phrases and combining similar terms, 24 redundant complications were removed, leaving a total of 67 complications (52%) in the final list. A total of 14 complications (11%) met exclusion thresholds and were eliminated by participants across both rounds. All other remaining complications not meeting inclusion or exclusion thresholds also were excluded from the final classification system after the Delphi process terminated. In addition, 47 of 75 proposed complication specifiers (63%) were included based on participant agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Using the Delphi consensus process, a comprehensive, standardized classification system consisting of 67 ocular complications and 47 unique specifiers was established for intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in clinical trials. The adoption of this system in future trials could improve consistency and quality of adverse event reporting, potentially facilitating more accurate risk-benefit analyses. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.552
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.046 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmologySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207