Ranibizumab biosimilar (Oceva) – real-world experience from India (RORE study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate early real-world clinical outcomes on the safety and efficacy of the ranibizumab biosimilar (Oceva, Sun Pharmaceuticals, India). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective, uncontrolled observational study evaluating data from 404 eyes that received a total of 742 intravitreal injections of the ranibizumab biosimilar (Oceva 0.5 mg) across four centers in India, administered between August 2024 and May 2025 in variable approved and off label indications. Of the total eyes, 288 were treatment-naïve naïve, while 116 eyes were previously treated. RESULTS: < 0.0001; d = 0.66). Naïve eyes showed greater improvements than previously treated ones. No serious ocular or systemic adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary real-world data from this limited early series suggest that ranibizumab biosimilar (Oceva) appears to be efficacious and safe across the approved indications. However, long-term data with a larger population are needed to further strengthen the findings of this study.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".