MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ultraviolet Light‐Induced Cyclobutane Pyrimidine Dimers in Rabbit Eyes

2011· article· en· W1757738912 on OpenAlexaff
Justin D. Mallet, Patrick J. Rochette

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotochemistry and Photobiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyrimidine dimerCorneaIRIS (biosensor)CataractsUltravioletLens (geology)Ultraviolet lightChemistryDNA damageBiophysicsDNABiologyOphthalmologyMedicinePhotochemistryMaterials scienceBiochemistryOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sunlight exposure of the eye leads to pathologies including photokeratitis, cortical cataracts, pterygium, actinic conjunctivitis and age-related macular degeneration. It is well established that exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiations leads to DNA damage, mainly cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs). CPD formation is the principal factor involved in skin cancer. However, the exact mechanism by which sunlight induces ocular pathologies is not well understood. To shed light on this issue, we quantified the CPD formation onto DNA of rabbit ocular cells following UVB exposure. We found that CPDs were induced only in the structures of the ocular anterior chamber (cornea, iris and lens) and were more concentrated in the corneal epithelium. Residual UVB that pass through the cornea are completely absorbed by the anterior layers of the iris. CPDs were also detected in the central portion of the lens that is not protected by the iris (pupil). By determining the UV-induced DNA damage formation in eyes, we showed that anterior ocular structures are a reliable physical barrier that protects the subjacent structures from the toxic effects of UV. Although the corneal epithelium is the structure where most of the CPDs were detected, no cancer is related to solar exposure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotochemistry and PhotobiologySame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207