MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993976044 · doi:10.1002/ar.20753

Contributions of Mouse Genetic Background and Age on Anterior Lens Capsule Thickness

2008· article· en· W1993976044 on OpenAlexaff
Brian P. Danysh, Kirk J. Czymmek, Pecos T. Olurin, J. G. Sivak, Melinda K. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Anatomical Record · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Eye InstituteDirectorate for Biological Sciences
KeywordsCapsuleLens (geology)Lens capsuleAnatomyConfocalBiologyStrain (injury)Inbred strainOpticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate lens capsule thickness measurements are necessary for studies investigating mechanical characteristics of the capsule. Confocal Z-axis imaging was used to measure the anterior lens capsule thickness of living intact lenses with minimal tissue manipulation. Measurements of the anterior capsule thickness is reported for the first time in young and old mice from four inbred strains, BALB/c, FVB/N, C57BL/6, and 129X1, and the outbred strain ICR. Our data demonstrates that the mouse anterior lens capsule continues to grow postnatally similar to that described in other mammals. It is also shown there is a significant difference in anterior lens capsule thickness between unrelated mouse strains, suggesting that capsule thickness is a quantitative trait shared by strains with common ancestry. Measurements, taken from other regions of FVB/N capsules revealed the anterior pole to be the thickest, followed by the equatorial region and posterior pole. In addition to mouse, anterior capsule measurements taken from intact cattle, rabbit, rat lenses, and human capsulotomy specimens correlated with the overall size of the animal.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations39
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Anatomical RecordSame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207