Inducing Form-Deprivation Myopia in Fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To induce form deprivation myopia in fish and investigate the role of the lens in the development of refractive error. METHODS: Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), approximately 4 months old and from 26 to 63 g, were divided into three groups. Translucent goggles were directly sutured over the right eye for 4 weeks to induce form-deprivation myopia; the left eye served as an untreated contralateral control. The refractive state was measured by retinoscopy. Ocular dimensions were determined from frozen sections and with ultrasound biomicroscopy, and a scanning laser system was used to determine the optical quality of excised lenses. RESULTS: After 4 weeks of form-deprivation treatment, all the deprived fish eyes showed development of significant amounts of myopia ranging from -3.75 to -26.25 D, with the average amounting to -10.27 +/- 1.14 D. Eye dimension measurements show that the vitreous and anterior chambers of the treated eye are significantly longer axially than those of the contralateral eyes. No significant change in optical quality was found between lenses of the myopic and nonmyopic eyes. The fish recovered completely from the myopia 5 days after the goggle was removed. CONCLUSIONS: Although lower vertebrates are capable of lifelong growth, their eyes are susceptible to form-deprivation myopia. Thus, the visual environment is an important factor controlling ocular development in lower vertebrates, as well as in higher ones, and eye development is not strictly genetically determined. This study also indicates that lens growth and optical development are largely independent from the refractive development of the whole eye.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".