Regional Variation in the Refractive‐Index of the Bovine and Human Cornea
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Given the refractive importance of the human cornea, surprisingly little attention has been directed to the study of local variation in corneal refractive-index. This in vitro and in vivo study measures the refractive-index of different portions of the bovine and human cornea. METHODS: Fifty fresh bovine corneas (obtained from an abattoir) and 10 human subjects were used for the study. The refractive-index of the central, nasal, and temporal corneal epithelium was measured with a bench-top Abbe refractometer in the case of bovine corneas and with a hand-held refractometer with humans. RESULTS: The mean (+/-standard deviation) refractive-indices of the central, nasal, and temporal bovine corneal epithelium were 1.3760 (+/-0.003), 1.3757 (+/-0.002), and 1.3746 (+/-0.002), respectively. Refractive-indices of the anterior and posterior bovine corneal stroma were 1.3731 (+/-0.002) and 1.3708 (+/-0.004), respectively. The mean (+/-standard deviation) refractive-index in the central, nasal, and temporal periphery of the human cornea epithelium were 1.3970 (+/-0.001), 1.3946 (+/-0.001), and 1.3940 (+/-0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: There are small local differences in the refractive-index of the bovine and human corneal epithelium and the refractive-index of the epithelium is higher than that of the anterior and posterior stroma of the bovine cornea.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it