Effect of Distance and Duration of Illumination on Retinal Ganglion Cells Exposed to Varying Concentrations of Brilliant Blue Green
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to determine the safety parameters of using brilliant blue green (BBG) for chromovitrectomy by assessing the cytotoxicity of BBG on cultured retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) exposed to illumination. METHODS: RGCs were exposed to two concentrations of BBG (0.25 and 0.5 mg/mL) under metal halide illumination at varying distances (1 and 2.5 cm), intensities (990 and 2,000 Fc), and durations (1, 5 and 15 minutes). Cell viability was assessed using the WST-1 and CellTiter 96(®) AQueous One solution cell proliferation assays. RESULTS: Using the WST-1 assay, with high-intensity illumination, viability of RGCs ranged from 97.5±16.4% of controls with minimum BBG and light exposure (0.25 mg/mL BBG and illuminated for 1 minute at 2.5 cm distance) to 53.1±11.3% of controls with maximum BBG and light exposure (0.50 mg/mL and illuminated for 15 minutes at 1 cm distance; P < 0.01). With medium-intensity illumination, RGCs showed better viability, ranging from 95.1±7.2% of controls with minimum BBG and light exposure to 72.3±12.8% of controls with maximum BBG and light exposure. CellTiter 96(®) AQueous One assay showed similar results. CONCLUSION: RGCs seem to safely tolerate up to 5 minutes of exposure to 0.5 mg/mL BBG under diffuse medium-intensity illumination (990 Fc).
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".