International consensuses and guidelines on management of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) by the Asia-Pacific Vitreo-retina Society (APVRS), the Academy of Asia-Pacific Professors of Ophthalmology (AAPPO) and the Academia Retina Internationalis (ARI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) presents both established consensus and ongoing controversies, particularly regarding emerging therapies (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents [VEGF], subthreshold laser and intravitreal steroids) versus conventional approaches (laser photocoagulation and vitrectomy). The Asia-Pacific Vitreo-retina Society (APVRS), the Academy of Asia-Pacific Professors of Ophthalmology (AAPPO) and the Academia Retina Internationalis (ARI) saw such a need to establish consensus and controversial statements on PDR management. They formed an international panel of experts (IPE) comprising 26 experts from 13 countries/territories to establish the statements, including diagnosis and diagnostic technologies, screening approaches, laser, anti-VEGF, intravitreal steroids and vitrectomy and related techniques in PDR management. The objective is to synthesize evidence-based real-world practice recommendations from leading global experts to guide the management of PDR. Of the 37 statements, the IPE reached consensus (75 % voted as "Strong Agreement" or "Agreement") on 28 (76 %) statements. Controversial statements, such as panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) in special scenarios, use of steroids in cases unresponsive to anti-VEGF and PRP and during vitrectomy to improve visual oucomes, and specific surgical techniques such as internal limiting membrane peeling and drainage retinotomy in the treatment of PDR are identified. Given its high prevalence and propensity for visual morbidity, and the recent advances in surgery for PDR, confirming the standard practices and deliberating on controversies to find the best approach by international experts would help improve the management of PDR further.
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 | 0.058 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".