MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417080275 · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2025.101032

A Phase I Randomized Trial of Topical Insulin for Glaucoma: Safety and Efficacy Outcomes

2025· article· en· W4417080275 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institutes of HealthGlaucoma FoundationCanada Research ChairsFoundation Fighting BlindnessUniversité de MontréalResearch to Prevent BlindnessGlaucoma Research Foundation
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialInsulinPhase (matter)Diabetes mellitusMEDLINEClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE Insulin is neuroprotective in mouse and non-human primate models of glaucoma. Here we evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical insulin in human patients with glaucoma. METHODS This prospective study of once-daily topical insulin for glaucoma was conducted in two parts: an open-label dose escalation phase evaluating low (100 units/mL) and high doses (500 units/mL), followed by a randomized, masked trial comparing low and high dose topical insulin. The worse-affected eye served as the study eye while the contralateral eye served as a control. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability, monitored by recording adverse events (AEs), intraocular pressure (IOP), and serum blood glucose and potassium levels. Secondary endpoints included structural and functional testing including visual acuity (VA), 24-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and macular and peripapillary flavoprotein fluorescence (FPF). RESULTS Safety and tolerability were favorable for topical insulin at both doses, with no serious AEs. The most frequent AE was transient stinging, resolving almost immediately following application to the study eyes. Blood glucose levels remained consistently stable before and after insulin administration for all groups. In Group 3, five out of 15 study eyes showed an increase of average retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness by 5 μm or more, compared to 0 of 12 fellow eyes from baseline to the 1-month visit (p=0.0476). On average, study eyes showed a larger increase in RNFL thickness compared to fellow eyes (1.11 μm in fellow eyes vs. 2.50 μm in study eyes) with no evidence of cystoid edema, and no difference detected between the two dose levels. The RNFL increase reversed to baseline by 1 month following cessation of insulin treatment. There were no changes in HVF or FPF during a 4-week administration period. CONCLUSIONS The application of topical insulin proved safe and well-tolerated among patients with glaucoma. Notably, one month of topical insulin led to a significant, reversible increase in RNFL thickness, indicating evidence for pharmacodynamic effect at the retina after topical delivery. These data support study initiation to evaluate topical insulin's neuroprotective or neuroenhancement effects.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.344 · 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