MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027388686 · doi:10.1097/ico.0b013e3181a87a28

Peripheral Endothelial Cell Damage After Trephination of Donor Tissue

2009· article· en· W2027388686 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrephineOphthalmologyMedicineStainEndothelial stem cellCorneaAnatomyPathologyChemistryStainingIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate and quantify the degree and pattern of donor endothelial cell damage, which occurs with mechanical trephination of donor corneal tissue. METHOD: Twenty donor corneal-scleral tissues were used for these paired experiments. The tissues were randomized for trephination with 10 tissues trephinated by an 8.0-mm-diameter Barron trephine (Katena, Denville, NJ), and 10 tissues trephinated with an 8.0-mm-diameter UltraFit Coronet trephine (distributed by Angiotech, British Columbia, Canada) by the same investigator. Trephinated corneal buttons were then stained with vital dye stain, and the endothelial layer image captured with digital photography. The images were then analyzed by digital planimetry, and the pattern and quantity of endothelial damage was determined by an investigator who was masked to the specific trephine used for the individual tissue. RESULTS: Trephination created a pattern of circular damage at the edge of the donor button in every case with no break in continuity of the circle, but some portions of the circle were wider than others. Occasional, scattered, peripheral small areas also displayed damage, but no significant striae, stretch, or other central damage was noted in any donor. The mean percent damage in the series was 6.35% +/- 0.90% (range: 4.33%-7.78%). The UltraFit Coronet trephinations averaged damage of 5.64% +/- 0.85% (range: 4.33%-6.69%), and the Barron trephinations averaged damage of 6.50% +/- 0.95% (range: 4.92%-7.78%). Although 8 of 10 experimental pairs of trephinations demonstrated less peripheral endothelial damage with the UltraFit Coronet trephine, the mean damage between each group did not reach statistical significance in this small series. (P = 0.08) CONCLUSIONS: Donor mechanical trephination of full-thickness corneal tissue creates relatively consistent amounts of peripheral edge damage and likely no central endothelial damage. There may exist differences in edge damage between different mechanical trephination systems, and a direct comparison to laser-created trephination is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.237 · 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