The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 19 of the 27 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-related Macular Degeneration in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT)
Open accessAbstract
Purpose To evaluate the pharmacogenetic relationship between genotypes of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) known to be associated with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and response to treatment with ranibizumab (Lucentis) or bevacizumab (Avastin) for neovascular AMD. Design Clinical trial. Participants 834 (73%) of 1149 patients participating in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) were recruited through 43 CATT clinical centers. Methods Each patient was genotyped for SNPs rs1061170 (CFH), rs10490924 (ARMS2), rs11200638 (HTRA1), and rs2230199 (C3), using TaqMan SNP genotyping assays. Main Outcomes Measures Genotypic frequencies were compared to clinical measures of response to therapy at one year including mean visual acuity (VA), mean change in VA, ≥15 letter increase, retinal thickness, mean change in total foveal thickness, presence of fluid on OCT, presence of leakage on fluorescein angiography (FA), mean change in lesion size and mean number of injections administered. Differences in response by genotype were evaluated with tests of linear trend calculated from logistic regression models for categorical outcomes and linear regression models for continuous outcomes. To adjust for multiple comparisons, p≤0.01 was considered statistically significant. Results No statistically significant differences in response by genotype were identified for any of the clinical measures studied. Specifically, there were no high-risk alleles that predicted final VA or change in VA, the degree of anatomical response (fluid on OCT or FA, retinal thickness, change in total foveal thickness, change in lesion size) or the number of injections. Furthermore, a stepwise analysis failed to show a significant epistatic interaction among the variants analyzed; i.e., response did not vary by the number of risk alleles present. The lack of association was similar whether patients were treated with ranibizumab or bevacizumab or whether they received monthly or pro re nata (PRN) dosing. Conclusions Although specific alleles for CFH, ARMS2, HTRA1 and C3 may predict the development of AMD, they did not predict response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
11 Own result · 9 Own method · 8 Supported · 6 Own interpretation · 4 Partly supported · 2 Supported so far · 2 No full text of the sources · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The majority of CATT participants (>92%) had stable or improved VA relative to baseline.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [1] 2011, Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, N Engl J Med sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Mean Change in Visual Acuity; page unavailable) report improved mean visual acuity in all four CATT groups. The Discussion defines maintained acuity as losing fewer than 15 letters, which can include a decline from baseline. Neither passage establishes that more than 92% of individual participants had unchanged or improved acuity. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) showed that bevacizumab was equivalent to ranibizumab in improving visual acuity (VA) of patients with neovascular AMD when treatment was administered either monthly or pro re nata (PRN).1”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [1] 2011, Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, N Engl J Med source
The Methods describe patients with neovascular AMD assigned to either drug monthly or as needed with monthly evaluation. The Results, under “Mean Change in Visual Acuity,” report improvement in all four groups and equivalent visual-acuity outcomes for bevacizumab and ranibizumab when compared on the same schedule at 1 year. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, despite this remarkable clinical effect, there was a wide range in treatment response.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [1] 2011, Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, N Engl J Med source
The Results (Secondary Outcomes; page not provided) show that visual acuity improved substantially for some patients, while others lost at least 15 letters. This range of individual outcomes supports the claim despite the overall improvement reported in Results (Mean Change in Visual Acuity). (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, there were no high-risk alleles that predicted final VA or change in VA, the degree of anatomical response (fluid on OCT or FA, retinal thickness, change in total foveal thickness, change in lesion size) or the number of injections.”
- Also stated in: § Number of Injections in the PRN Treatment Groups · plain
“Among the participants in the two PRN groups, no statistically significant difference was found in the number of injections among the different genotypes for any of the four SNPs, or for the total number of risk alleles from the four SNPs (Table 2).”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Number of Injections in the PRN Treatment Groups · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, there were no high-risk alleles that predicted final VA or change in VA, the degree of anatomical response (fluid on OCT or FA, retinal thickness, change in total foveal thickness, change in lesion size) or the number of injections.”
- Also stated in: § Anatomical Outcomes by Genotype · plain
“For each of the five anatomic outcomes evaluated at one year, there was no significant association with any of the genotypes or with the number of alleles from the four SNPs (Table 3).”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Anatomical Outcomes by Genotype · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, when additional time-points (12, 24 and 36 weeks) were evaluated using longitudinal models, there was no association between genotype and mean change in VA from baseline (smallest p value = 0.30).”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results > Visual Outcomes by Genotype
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, there were no high-risk alleles that predicted final VA or change in VA, the degree of anatomical response (fluid on OCT or FA, retinal thickness, change in total foveal thickness, change in lesion size) or the number of injections.”
- Also stated in: § Visual Outcomes by Genotype · plain
“For each of the three visual measures evaluated at one year, there was no association with any of the genotypes or with the number of risk alleles from the four SNPs (Table 2).”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Visual Outcomes by Genotype · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No statistically significant differences in response by genotype were identified for any of the clinical measures studied.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“In our study, we found no statistically significant pharmacogenetic association between these SNPs and visual acuity outcomes, anatomical outcomes or the number of injections required.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, when additional time-points (12 and 24 weeks) were evaluated using longitudinal models, there was no association between genotype and mean change in total foveal thickness from baseline (smallest p value = 0.27).”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results > Anatomical Outcomes by Genotype
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The genotypic frequencies for each SNP analyzed were balanced across treatment groups, drug and dosing regimen (data not shown).”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“However, other studies report no association with the risk genotype.9,10”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] Orlin, 2012, Association between high-risk disease loci and response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration, Retina source
The Results report no significant association between treatment response and any tested risk variant, including CFH Y402H. The Discussion likewise reports no statistically significant difference in CFH risk-genotype frequency between positive and negative responders to anti-VEGF treatment for wet AMD. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] McKibbin, 2012, CFH, VEGF and HTRA1 promoter genotype may influence the response to intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Br J Ophthalmol source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Genetic variation at this locus has been shown to confer a differential risk for CNV versus geographic atrophy.21”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [21] Sobrin, 2011, ARMS2/HTRA1 locus can confer differential susceptibility to the advanced subtypes of age-related macular degeneration, Am J Ophthalmol source
The Results report that the T allele of ARMS2/HTRA1 rs10490924 was significantly more frequent in participants with CNV than in those with geographic atrophy (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21–1.54). This directly supports the cited claim of differential risk at the locus. (LLM, conf=0.95)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“it has been proposed that the A69S polymorphism alters ARMS2 function and increases susceptibility of photoreceptor cells to oxidative damage and aging.22”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [22] Kanda, 2007, A variant of mitochondrial protein LOC387715/ARMS2, not HTRA1, is strongly associated with age-related macular degeneration, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A source
The Discussion links photoreceptors’ risk of oxidative damage to the proposal that the A69S substitution alters ARMS2 function and increases susceptibility to aging-associated degeneration of macular photoreceptors. The citing sentence accurately presents this as a proposal, not an established mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Reports investigating either bevacizumab or ranibizumab indicate that patients homozygous for the risk allele at the CFH Y402H polymorphism experienced worse visual outcomes or required more injections than patients with other genotypes.4–8”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [4] Brantley, 2007, Association of complement factor H and LOC387715 genotypes with response of exudative age-related macular degeneration to intravitreal bevacizumab, Ophthalmology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited Brantley paper concerns CFH genotype and visual response to bevacizumab, but the paper-scoped search returned no full-text snippets. A Semantic Scholar snippet from “Update on the role of genetics in the onset of age-related macular degeneration” describes an 86-patient bevacizumab study in which patients with the CFH CC risk genotype had worse visual outcomes than those with TC or TT genotypes; it identifies that study as reference 81. This supports the visual-outcomes part of the claim through a secondary citation, though it does not establish that Brantley reported a greater injection requirement. (LLM, conf=0.80)
- Supportedcites [5] Lee, 2009, Pharmacogenetics of complement factor H (Y402H) and treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration with ranibizumab, Br J Ophthalmol sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited Lee (2009) paper directly supports the injection part of the claim: patients homozygous for the CFH Y402H risk allele had a 37% higher risk of requiring additional ranibizumab injections (paper-scoped snippet, score 0.694). It does not support worse visual outcomes; the snippet reports similar mean visual acuities across genotypes. Because the citing sentence says “or required more injections,” attribution to this paper is reasonable. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Teper, 2010, Involvement of genetic factors in the response to a variable-dosing ranibizumab treatment regimen for age-related macular degeneration, Mol Vis [serial online]
- Supportedcites [7] Nischler, 2011, Complement factor H Y402H gene polymorphism and response to intravitreal bevacizumab in exudative age-related macular degeneration [report online], Acta Ophthalmol sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited Nischler et al. paper concerns CFH Y402H genotype and response to intravitreal bevacizumab in exudative AMD. Although paper-scoped Semantic Scholar searches returned no snippets, a review, “Personalized Medicine in Ophthalmology,” reports that patients with the CC risk genotype had worse visual-acuity outcomes after bevacizumab; its matching passage scored 0.858. The same passage describes more ranibizumab injections among CC patients, supporting the citing sentence’s broader summary of multiple reports. The review does not establish which result specifically came from Nischler et al., so confidence is limited. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] Francis, 2011, The influence of genetics on response to treatment with ranibizumab (Lucentis) for age-related macular degeneration: the Lucentis Genotype Study (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis), Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The increased inflammation found in patients harboring complement-related AMD-risk alleles has been hypothesized to favor recurrence of neovascularization due to increased levels of VEGF.5”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [5] Lee, 2009, Pharmacogenetics of complement factor H (Y402H) and treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration with ranibizumab, Br J Ophthalmol sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions hypothesize that CFH Y402H risk variants may be associated with higher background inflammation and more rapid recurrence of neovascularization. The paper does not establish that these patients had increased inflammation or attribute recurrence to increased VEGF levels; its mention of VEGF concerns anti-VEGF treatment. (LLM, conf=0.87)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“At one year, participants treated monthly with bevacizumab or ranibizumab gained 8.0 and 8.5 letters, respectively, and those treated as needed gained 5.9 and 6.8 letters, respectively.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [1] 2011, Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, N Engl J Med source
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports gains of 5.9 and 6.8 letters with as-needed bevacizumab and ranibizumab, respectively. It also reports differences from the corresponding monthly groups of 2.1 and 1.7 letters at one year, yielding the stated monthly gains of 8.0 and 8.5 letters. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“It has been hypothesized that overexpression of HTRA1 may alter the integrity of Bruch’s membrane and favor the development of CNV.2”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [2] Ding, 2009, Molecular pathology of age-related macular degeneration, Prog Retin Eye Res source
Section 3.4.5 reports elevated HtrA1 expression in CNV components, and the following discussion proposes that HtrA1 protease activity may favor neovascularization by degrading extracellular matrix. Section 2.2 describes CNV vessels penetrating Bruch’s membrane. Together, these passages support the citing sentence’s explicitly hypothetical account; the paper does not present the mechanism as established. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Pioneering developments in AMD genetics research have identified numerous single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in multiple genes associated with the prevalence of the early and/or late stages of AMD.2,3”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [2] Ding, 2009, Molecular pathology of age-related macular degeneration, Prog Retin Eye Res source
Section 3.1 says that SNPs linked to several pathological processes have been associated with AMD. Sections 3.2, 3.4 and 3.6 describe variants in multiple genes and associations with early or intermediate, advanced, and neovascular AMD. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Supportedcites [3] Deangelis, 2011, Genetics of age-related macular degeneration: current concepts, future directions, Semin Ophthalmol source
The Candidate Genes section describes variation in multiple genes statistically associated with AMD risk. Its Other Genes subsection reports an association with both early and advanced AMD for VEGFA variation, while the Complement Genes subsection identifies a C3 SNP associated with late-stage AMD. The indexed passages do not provide page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Although other susceptibility genes have been reported, these four SNPs have consistently been shown to have the strongest associations with the development and progression of AMD and have been postulated to influence response to therapy.2,3,12”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [2] Ding, 2009, Molecular pathology of age-related macular degeneration, Prog Retin Eye Res sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Sections 3.2 and 3.4 report strong associations of particular CFH, ARMS2, and HtrA1 variants with AMD risk, and section 7 reports that a risk-conferring CFH variant was associated with reduced response to antioxidant and zinc therapy. The paper does not establish that the citing study’s four SNPs, as a group, consistently have the strongest associations with both AMD development and progression or that all four may influence treatment response. No page numbers were provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites [3] Deangelis, 2011, Genetics of age-related macular degeneration: current concepts, future directions, Semin Ophthalmol sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) identifies the CFH and ARMS2/HTRA1 regions as having large effects on AMD risk, particularly neovascular AMD risk. It does not establish that the four SNPs in the citing study are consistently the strongest for both development and progression. The Conclusions (page unavailable) say that no consistent correlation between genotype and treatment response had been established; they do not support the claim that these four SNPs had been postulated to influence treatment response. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [12] Schwartz, 2011, Pharmacogenetics and age-related macular degeneration, J Ophthalmol [serial online] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In §2 (Studied Genotypes; page unavailable), the paper describes CFH as strongly linked to AMD and the ARMS2/HTRA1 locus as consistently associated with it. Sections 3–5 examine whether genetic variants influence treatment response. The paper does not identify four SNPs as consistently having the strongest associations with both AMD development and progression; §3 reports no significant association with progression for ARMS2 A69S in the AREDS analysis. (LLM, conf=0.85)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Results from studies evaluating the ARMS2 A69S and HTRA1 promoter polymorphisms are also conflicting with regard to treatment response and no definitive conclusions can be drawn.9–11”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [9] Orlin, 2012, Association between high-risk disease loci and response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration, Retina sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports no significant association between the tested ARMS2/HTRA1 variants and anti-VEGF response and calls for a larger study, supporting the lack of a definitive conclusion. But the paper does not establish conflicting results from studies of both named polymorphisms: it says there were no previously published reports assessing HTRA1’s influence on treatment response. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] McKibbin, 2012, CFH, VEGF and HTRA1 promoter genotype may influence the response to intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Br J Ophthalmol source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [11] Kloeckener-Gruissem, 2011, Genetic association with response to intravitreal ranibizumab in patients with neovascular AMD, Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The ARMS2 gene product has been localized to the mitochondrial outer membrane”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [22] Kanda, 2007, A variant of mitochondrial protein LOC387715/ARMS2, not HTRA1, is strongly associated with age-related macular degeneration, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A source
The Discussion states that LOC387715/ARMS2 protein localizes to the mitochondrial outer membrane in transfected mammalian cells. The Results describe mitochondrial colocalization and a proteinase K experiment consistent with outer-membrane localization. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strongest association was for HTRA1 (p=0.25) where the highest mean number of injections (8.0) was among those homozygous for the risk allele (AA) and an equal mean number of injections (7.3) was required among those heterozygous for the risk allele (AG) or homozygous for the non-risk allele (GG).”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results > Number of Injections in the PRN Treatment Groups
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strongest association was for mean visual acuity with C3 (p=0.03); however, the association was for better visual acuity among those homozygous for the risk allele (GG).”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results > Visual Outcomes by Genotype
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lack of association was similar whether patients were treated with ranibizumab or bevacizumab or whether they received monthly or pro re nata (PRN) dosing.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The effect of risk alleles on each measure did not differ by treatment group, drug or regimen.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
plainn = 834- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, a stepwise analysis failed to show a significant epistatic interaction among the variants analyzed; i.e., response did not vary by the number of risk alleles present.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strongest association was for mean change in total retinal thickness with CFH (p=0.03) where the association was for less improvement (decrease 142 microns) among those homozygous for the risk allele (CC) and largest improvement (decrease 188 microns) among those with heterozygous for risk allele (CT).”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results > Anatomical Outcomes by Genotype
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data from the CATT study provided high power (93% to 98%) to detect a mean difference of 2.5 letters in VA and moderate power (75% to 85%) to detect a difference of 2 letters in VA associated with one risk allele change, under the observed standard deviation of 16 to 18 letters in VA and type I error of 0.01.”
- Also stated in: § Data Analysis · plain
“For categorical outcomes, the CATT study data provided high power (>85%) to detect a difference of 0.06 or more in the proportion associated with the addition of one risk allele.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Data Analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Data Analysis · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We cannot exclude the possibility that other SNPs that are less predictive of AMD risk may be associated with response to therapy.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although specific alleles for CFH, ARMS2, HTRA1 and C3 may predict the development of AMD, they did not predict response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Abstract > Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, all visual acuities were determined by masked examiners using electronic EDTRS testing, all OCT measurements were determined in a masked fashion by an independent OCT Reading Center and all photographic and fluorescein angiographic outcomes were determined by masked assessment at an independent Fundus Photographic Reading Center.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CATT is a large, prospectively defined cohort of patients with neovascular AMD drawn from multiple clinical sites with all follow-up treatment and outcomes carried out under well-defined protocols.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Patients were randomly assigned to one of the four treatment groups: (1) ranibizumab monthly; (2) bevacizumab monthly; (3) ranibizumab PRN; and (4) bevacizumab PRN.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Patients
plainn = 1,185- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To account for multiple comparisons from multiple SNPs and multiple outcomes, we considered p≤0.01 as statistically significant.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Data Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All examiners and readers were masked to treatment assignment.”
- Also stated in: § Genotype Determination · plain
“All laboratory personnel were masked to treatment assignment and patient clinical data.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Measures of Response to Treatment
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Genotype Determination · plain
In the paper
“ARMS2 and HTRA1 both lie in the AMD susceptibility locus identified on chromosome 10q26 and are expressed in the retina.20”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Tong, 2010, LOC387715/HTRA1 gene polymorphisms and susceptibility to age-related macular degeneration: a HuGE review and meta-analysis, Mol Vis [serial online]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, inflammation has been postulated to reduce response to anti-VEGF treatment.19”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Bressler, 2009, Introduction: understanding the role of angiogenesis and antiangiogenic agents in age-related macular degeneration, Ophthalmology source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there is little biological evidence to support this idea and our data provides convincing evidence that the complement pathway, or at least these SNPs in the complement pathway, do not strongly influence response to therapy.”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The genetic study participants were generally comparable to those who were still alive but chose not to participate (n = 315) except that the genetic study participants were two years younger (p<0.001), had better baseline VA (p=0.005), higher percentage with hypertension (p=0.045), and higher percentage with occult lesion (p=0.04) (Table 1).”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Results
plaincorrelationaln = 315 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The SNP evaluated in HTRA1 is located in the promoter region and is predicted to increase expression levels of the gene.23”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] Dewan, 2006, HTRA1 promoter polymorphism in wet age-related macular degeneration, Science source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Genetic variants play a role in the heterogeneity of clinical response to anti-VEGF therapy.
“Given the impact of genetic factors on disease manifestation and progression, a logical assumption would be that genetic variants play a role.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, two large, multicenter randomized clinical trials could not replicate these findings [36,37].”
From Genetics and Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Practical Review for Clinicians. (2024) · cites this paper as [36]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Thus far, the larger studies have not found pharmacogenetic associations with responsiveness to treatment.37,38”
From Defining response to anti-VEGF therapies in neovascular AMD (2015) · cites this paper as [37]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, specific alleles for CFH (rs1061170), ARMS2 (rs10490924), and HTRA1 (rs11200638) did not predict response to anti-VEGF therapy in the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT) randomized controlled trial.24”
From ANO2 Genetic Variants and Anti-VEGF Treatment Response in Neovascular AMD: A Pharmacogenetic Substudy of VIEW 1 and VIEW 2 (2024) · cites this paper as [24]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Genotype Determination
“Complement component 3 (C3) R80G (rs2230199)”
§ Pharmacogenetics for Genes Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) > Methods > Genotype Determination
“resulting in the amino acid glycine to arginine at codon 80.”
Citations
Cites
Models for Longitudinal Data: A Generalized Estimating Equation Approach
Zeger, S. L., Liang, K., & Albert, P. S. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531734 · Cited by 4,505
Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration
(2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1102673 · Cited by 2,669 · cited 3×
“The Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) showed that bevacizumab was equivalent to ranibizumab in improving visual acuity (VA) of patients with neovascular AMD when treatment was administered either monthly or pro re nata (PRN).(1) At 1 year, participants treated monthly with bevacizumab or ranibizumab gained r”
InfluentialHTRA1 Promoter Polymorphism in Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration
DeWan, A., Liu, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, S. S.-M., Liu, D. T. L., Zhao, C., Tam, P. O. S., Chan, W. M., Lam, D. S. C., Snyder, M., et al. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1133807 · Cited by 876
A computerized method of visual acuity testing
Beck, R. W., Moke, P. S., Turpin, A. H., Ferris, F. L., SanGiovanni, J. P., Johnson, C. A., Birch, E. E., Chandler, D. L., Cox, T. A., Blair, R. C., et al. (2003) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9394(02)01825-1 · Cited by 613
Molecular pathology of age-related macular degeneration
Ding, X., Patel, M., & Chan, C.-C. (2009) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2008.10.001 · Cited by 582 · cited 4×
“It has been hypothesized that overexpression of TRA1 may alter the integrity of Bruch’s membrane and avor the development of CNV.(2) This may suggest that TRA1 would play a role in regulating CNV and therefore ould affect response to anti-VEGF therapy.”
InfluentialKanda, A., Chen, W., Othman, M., Branham, K. E. H., Brooks, M., Khanna, R., He, S., Lyons, R., Abecasis, G. R., & Swaroop, A. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0703933104 · Cited by 441
Normal Macular Thickness Measurements in Healthy Eyes Using Stratus Optical Coherence Tomography
Chan, A. Y. (2006) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.124.2.193 · Cited by 425
Bressler, S. B. (2009) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.06.045 · Cited by 205
Brantley, M. A., Fang, A. M., King, J. M., Tewari, A., Kymes, S. M., & Shiels, A. (2007) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.09.008 · Cited by 201
Lee, A. Y., Raya, A. K., Kymes, S. M., Shiels, A., & Brantley, M. A. (2009) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo.2008.150995 · Cited by 134 · cited 2×
“The increased inflammation found in patients harboring complement-related AMD-risk alleles has been hypothesized to favor recurrence of neovascularization resulting from increased levels of VEGF.”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Risk of geographic atrophy in the comparison of age-related macular degeneration treatments trials
Grunwald, J. E., Daniel, E., Huang, J., Ying, G.-S., Maguire, M. G., Toth, C. A., Jaffe, G. J., Fine, S. L., Blodi, B., Klein, M. L., et al. (2014) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.015 · Cited by 590
Self-citationImmunology of age-related macular degeneration
Ambati, J., Atkinson, J. P., & Gelfand, B. D. (2013) · Nature reviews. Immunology · doi:10.1038/nri3459 · Cited by 606
Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Solomon, S. D., Lindsley, K., Vedula, S. S., Krzystolik, M. G., & Hawkins, B. S. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005139.pub3 · Cited by 520
A paradigm shift in imaging biomarkers in neovascular age-related macular degeneration
Schmidt-Erfurth, U., & Waldstein, S. M. (2016) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2015.07.007 · Cited by 390
“However, other reports failed to replicate these findings (Hagstrom et al., 2013, 2014; Park et al., 2014).”
ResultMettu, P. S., Allingham, M. J., & Cousins, S. W. (2021) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2020.100906 · Cited by 370
Metadata
- Authors
- Hagstrom, S. A., Ying, G.-S., Pauer, G. J. T., Sturgill-Short, G. M., Huang, J., Callanan, D. G., Kim, I. K., Klein, M. L., Maguire, M. G., & Martin, D. F.
- Affiliations
- Cleveland Clinic (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Texas Retina Associates (United States) (US)
- Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (US)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hagstrom, Stephanie A.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 120
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 593-599
- ISSN
- 0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3633658
- OpenAlex
- W2162946426
- Semantic Scholar
- 6bb1df2e038b945fd63d4609450bb54fbb03b99d
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 13
- FWCI
- 23.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000439)
- National Eye Institute (U10EY017825, U10EY017826, U10EY017823, U10EY017828)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
- Keywords
- age-related macular degeneration, neovascular AMD, pharmacogenetics, single nucleotide polymorphisms, ranibizumab, bevacizumab, complement factor H, ARMS2, HTRA1, complement C3, treatment response, visual acuity, anti-VEGF therapy, epistasis, pro re nata dosing
- MeSH terms
- Bevacizumab, Ranibizumab, High-Temperature Requirement A Serine Peptidase 1, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Complement C3, Female, Fluorescein Angiography, Gene Frequency, Genotype, Humans, Macular Degeneration, Male, Pharmacogenetics, Prospective Studies, Proteins, Serine Endopeptidases, Visual Acuity, Complement Factor H, Angiogenesis Inhibitors, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Tomography, Optical Coherence, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-29, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-29 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review