MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparing the photopic ERG i‐wave in different species

2004· article· en· W2026827239 on OpenAlexaff
Serge G. Rosolen, Florence Rigaudière, Jean‐François LeGargasson, C. Chalier, Marianne Rufiange, Julie Racine, Sandrine Joly, Pierre Lachapelle

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Ophthalmology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHôpital de l'Enfant-JésusMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotopic visionErgRetinalElectroretinographyBiologyRetinaAnatomyScotopic visionGuinea pigNeuroscienceEndocrinologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The i-wave, a post b-wave component of the human photopic electroretinogram (ERG), is claimed to originate at the level of the retinal ganglion cells (RGC) or more distally. We investigated whether this wave is a feature common to all species. Photopic ERGs were obtained from the following species: Beagle dog, European cat, New Zealand white rabbit, Göttingen minipig, Cynomolgus monkey, Sprague-Dawley and brown Norway rats, Hartley guinea pig, and CD1 and C57BL6 mice. Results were compared with those obtained from normal human subjects. Except for rats and mice, all species yielded a well-demarcated i-wave, easily identifiable and separated from the a-b-wave complex by approximately 20 ms. Our sample suggests that the i-wave is a feature common to the photopic ERG of most species including humans. In view of its suggested origin, the i-wave would offer a unique opportunity to test, with the flash ERG, the functional integrity of the retinal ganglion cells in animals where use of a pattern stimulus is not always easily obtained.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations52
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary OphthalmologySame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207