International Classification System for Ocular Complications of Anti-VEGF Agents in Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.135 | 0.272 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".