A Focus on the Optical Properties of the Regenerated Newt Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lens regeneration studies in the adult newt suggest that molecular aspects of lens regeneration are complete within 5 weeks of lentectomy. However, very little is known about the optical properties of the regenerated lens. In an aquatic environment, the lens accounts for almost all of the refractive power of the eye, and thus, a fully functional lens is critical. We compared the optical properties of 9- and 26-week regenerated lenses in the red spotted newt, Notophthalmus viridescens, with the original lenses removed from the same eyes. At 9 weeks, the regenerated lenses are smaller than the original lenses and are histologically immature, with a lower density of lens proteins. The 9 week lenses have greater light transmission, but significantly reduced focal length and refractive index than the original lenses. This suggests that following 9 weeks of regeneration, the lenses have not recovered the functionality of the original lens. By 26 weeks, the transmission of light in the more mature lens is reduced, but the optical parameters of the lens have recovered enough to allow functional vision.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".