Effects of experimentally induced ametropia on the morphology and optical quality of the avian crystalline lens.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the effects of refractive error on avian lens morphology and optical quality. METHODS: Hatchling white leghorn chicks were unilaterally goggled for 7 days with either a form-deprivation goggle (n = 12), a -10 D defocus goggle (n = 12), or a +10 D defocus goggle (n = 12) to induce myopia and hyperopia. Optical quality of lenses (focal length and focal length variability) from treated and contralateral control eyes was assessed using a scanning laser apparatus. Lens morphology was examined by light and electron microscopy. RESULTS: Although the induction of refractive errors did not significantly alter lens size, shape, paraxial focal length, or average focal length, average focal length variability increased. Lenses from eyes goggled with form-deprivation and +10 D defocus goggles demonstrated a twofold increase in average focal length variability, when compared with their contralateral controls. The morphology of the lens is not altered by these experimental manipulations. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that the refractive development of the chick lens is not independent of the refractive development of the ocular globe and that chick lenticular development is influenced by both genetics and visual experience.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".