KIDNEY INJURY DURING TREATMENT WITH AFLIBERCEPT VERSUS RANIBIZUMAB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Systemically administered anticancer vascular endothelial growth factor inhibiting therapies can cause severe kidney injury. Intravitreal aflibercept has a greater impact on renal vascular endothelial growth factor levels than ranibizumab. We compared the risk of kidney injury among patients receiving intravitreal aflibercept versus ranibizumab. METHODS: This population-based new-user active-comparator cohort study in Ontario, Canada, evaluated 44,571 patients aged 66 years and older, newly treated with intravitreal aflibercept or ranibizumab between August 1, 2015, and July 31, 2019. The risk of adverse renal outcomes was compared while controlling for baseline and time-varying covariates. RESULTS: The composite renal outcome occurred in 12.0% (1,778/14,863) of aflibercept recipients versus 10.0% (1,327/13,289) of ranibizumab recipients (relative risk: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.93-1.06 at the 5-year follow-up). No significant differences were observed across retinal disease subgroups. CONCLUSION: Intravitreal aflibercept and ranibizumab carry comparable risks of renal adverse events despite their distinct systemic pharmacodynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".