Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 310

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ciliary neurotrophic factor delivered by encapsulated cell intraocular implants for treatment of geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration

Open access
Zhang, Kang, Hopkins, Jill J., Heier, Jeffrey S., Birch, David G., Halperin, Lawrence S., Albini, Thomas A., Brown, David M., Jaffe, Glenn J., Tao, Weng, Williams, George A.·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1018987108
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is no treatment available for vision loss associated with advanced dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD) or geographic atrophy (GA). In a pilot, proof of concept phase 2 study, we evaluated ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF) delivered via an intraocular encapsulated cell technology implant for the treatment of GA. We designed a multicenter, 1-y, double-masked, sham-controlled dose-ranging study. Patients with GA were randomly assigned to receive a high-or low-dose implant or sham surgery. The primary endpoint was the change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 12 mo. CNTF treatment resulted in a dose-dependent increase in retinal thickness. This change was followed by visual acuity stabilization (loss of less than 15 letters) in the high-dose group (96.3%) compared with low-dose (83.3%) and sham (75%) group. A subgroup analysis of those with baseline BCVA at 20/63 or better revealed that 100% of patients in the high-dose group lost <15 letters compared with 55.6% in the combined low-dose/sham group ( P = 0.033). There was a 0.8 mean letter gain in the high-dose group compared with a 9.7 mean letter loss in the combined low-dose/sham group ( P = 0.0315). Both the implant and the implant procedure were well-tolerated. These findings suggest that CNTF delivered by the encapsulated cell technology implant appears to slow the progression of vision loss in GA, especially in eyes with 20/63 or better vision at baseline.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1018987108

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

See all 310

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, K., Hopkins, J. J., Heier, J. S., Birch, D. G., Halperin, L. S., Albini, T. A., Brown, D. M., Jaffe, G. J., Tao, W., & Williams, G. A.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-03-28
Volume
108
Issue
15
Pages
6241-6245
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1018987108
OpenAlex
W1972955056
Cited by
310
References
25
FWCI
25.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ciliary neurotrophic factor delivered by encapsulated cell intraocular implants for treatment of geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1018987108
The paper
Zhang, K., Hopkins, J. J., Heier, J. S., Birch, D. G., Halperin, L. S., Albini, T. A., Brown, D. M., Jaffe, G. J., Tao, W., & Williams, G. A. (2011). Ciliary neurotrophic factor delivered by encapsulated cell intraocular implants for treatment of geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018987108

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.