EIU in the rat promotes the potential of syngeneic retinal cells injected into the vitreous cavity to induce PVR.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether syngeneic retinal cells injected in the vitreous cavity of the rat are able to initiate a proliferative process and whether the ocular inflammation induced in rats by lipopolysaccharide (LPS) promotes this proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR). METHODS: Primary cultured differentiated retinal Müller glial (RMG) and retinal pigmented epithelial (RPE) cells isolated from 8 to 12 postnatal Lewis rats were injected into the vitreous cavity of 8- to 10-week-old Lewis rats (10(5) cells/eye in 2 microlieter sterile saline), with or without the systemic injection of 150 microgram LPS to cause endotoxin-induced uveitis (EIU). Control groups received an intravitreal injection of 2 microliter saline. At 5, 15, and 28 days after cell injections, PVR was clinically quantified, and immunohistochemistry for OX42, ED1, vimentin (VIM), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and cytokeratin was performed. RESULTS: The injection of RMG cells, alone or in combination with RPE cells, induced the preretinal proliferation of a GFAP-positive tissue, that was enhanced by the systemic injection of LPS. Indeed, when EIU was induced at the time of RMG cell injection into the vitreous cavity, the proliferation led to retinal folds and localized tractional detachments. In contrast, PVR enhanced the infiltration of inflammatory cells in the anterior segment of the eye. CONCLUSIONS: In the rat, syngeneic retinal cells of glial origin induce PVR that is enhanced by the coinduction of EIU. In return, vitreoretinal glial proliferation enhanced the intensity and duration of EIU.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".