MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417497569 · doi:10.1080/14712598.2025.2606897

Ranibizumab biosimilar (Oceva) – real-world experience from India (RORE study)

2025· article· en· W4417497569 on OpenAlexaff
Ashish Sharma, Jay Sheth, Chitaranjan Mishra, Debdulal Chakraborty, Bhagyashree Meshram

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsElectrovaya (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosimilarRanibizumabPopulationClinical trialPharmacogeneticsMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207