RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF LUCENTIS “TREAT AND EXTEND” PATTERNS AND OUTCOMES IN AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: To assess patterns and outcomes of a “Treat and Extend” dosing regimen of ranibizumab in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Methods: Three hundred and thirty two treatment-naive age-related macular degeneration patients starting therapy with ranibizumab between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012, at the Ivey Eye Institute were reviewed, and 79 met inclusion criteria. Patients on Treat and Extend dosing regimen underwent an induction phase with monthly injections and then moved onto an extension phase. Change in visual acuity and central retinal thickness during the induction and extension phases were recorded. Results: During the induction phase, patients had a significant gain in vision and decrease in central retinal thickness (+8.4 letters, P < 0.001 and −81.3 μm, P < 0.001). During the extension phase, patients did not have significant change in vision (−0.5 letters, P = 0.81) and did not have significant change in central retinal thickness (−11.5 μm, P = 0.17). The average extension interval between treatments was 47.7 days, with patients receiving an average of 8.6 injections per year. Cost analysis showed it cost US $16,659 to treat 1 patient in the first year on Treat and Extend dosing regimen compared with US $20,614 on monthly dosing. Conclusion: Treat and Extend dosing regimen allows similar visual outcomes to monthly dosing, while reducing the total number of injections, visits, and overall cost. Patients on Treat and Extend are able to maintain similar visual and central retinal thickness outcomes as those on monthly and pro re nata dosing of ranibizumab. Treat and Extend offers increased convenience and reduced cost over previous regimens while maintaining similar clinical outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it