MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981723536 · doi:10.1016/j.cellbi.2003.11.012

Influence of initial fixation protocol on the appearance of primary cilia on the rabbit corneal endothelial cell apical surface as assessed by scanning electron microscopy

2004· article· en· W1981723536 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael J. Doughty

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Biology International · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsFixativeGlutaraldehydeFixation (population genetics)TonicityIsotonicCiliumAnatomyParaformaldehydeCorneal endotheliumBiologyChemistryCorneaPathologyCell biologyMedicineCytoplasmBiochemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective was to examine primary cilia at the apical surface of corneal endothelial cells after using different fixatives. Female albino rabbits (2 kg) were euthanised at 15:00 h and the corneas fixed immediately (usually with an isotonic 2% glutaraldehyde-cacodylate fixative) either after dissection, by application fixative at 4 degrees C, by immersion of the eyeball in fixative at room temperature (RT), or by application of an isotonic or a hypertonic (Karnovsky-type) fixative at RT. Images at 2000x were taken from the central corneal region, and number and length of primary cilia assessed. The length was the same regardless of method (overall average of 1.67+/-0.70 microm), but the incidence of primary cilia was hypertonic fixative (87% of cells) >cold drop fixation (71%), >whole globe immersion (68%) >dissect then fix methods (67%) >RT drop fixation (34%). The first four methods however yielded cells with unacceptable artefacts (especially distortion). More details should be provided of the primary fixation method used.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell Biology InternationalSame topicGenetic and Kidney Cyst DiseasesFrench-language works237,207