Qualitative tear film and conjunctival goblet cell assessment of cats with corneal sequestra
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
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the tear film qualitatively and conjunctival goblet cell numbers in cats with and without corneal sequestra. ANIMALS STUDIED AND PROCEDURES: This was a prospective evaluation of 11 cats with corneal sequestra and 14 control eyes that were either the contralateral normal eye when the sequestrum was unilateral or from control cats of similar age with no ocular disease. All cats in this study were examined by a veterinary ophthalmologist. The ophthalmic examinations included a neuro-ophthalmic evaluation, Schirmer tear tests, fluorescein staining, tear film break-up times, applanation tonometry, biomicroscopy, and indirect ophthalmoscopy. The palpebral conjunctiva at the dorsal nasal, ventral nasal, dorsal temporal and ventral temporal fornices were biopsied after topical anesthetic was applied to the cornea and conjunctiva. The conjunctival biopsies were fixed in formalin and sectioned routinely and stained with hematoxylin and eosin, and periodic acid-Schiff. These slides were examined by light microscopy by a blinded examiner. Goblet cell numbers were compared to conjunctival basal epithelial cell numbers by region. The goblet cell numbers by region from the eyes with sequestra was statistically compared to those from eyes without sequestra, with a student's paired t-test. Conjunctival swabs were collected from the cats with corneal sequestra and submitted for polymerase chain reaction for Herpes felis, Chlamydia psiitticia, and Mycoplasma felis. The corneal sequestra were removed by surgical keratectomy and fixed and stained routinely, and examined by light microscopy. RESULTS: No neurologic abnormalities were detected in any of the cats. The Schirmer tear tests (eyes with sequestra 14+/-5.1 mm/min; normal eyes 15+/-6.8 mm/min) and intraocular pressures (eyes with sequestra 21+/-6.6; normal eyes 22+/-5.8) were within normal reference ranges for cats. Biomicroscopic examinations revealed varied sizes and depths of brown- and amber-colored corneal sequestra. No abnormalities were noted on indirect ophthalmoscopic examinations. The tear film break-up time was 21 s (+/-12) for the normal eyes (n=14) and 14 s (+/-13) in eyes with corneal sequestra (n=11). The average goblet/epithelial cell ratios by region for the normal eyes and the eyes with sequestra respectively were 0.66, 0.56 for the dorsal nasal fornix, 0.68, 0.57 for the ventral nasal fornix, 0.63, 0.48 for the temporal dorsal fornix, and 0.55, 0.49 for the temporal ventral fornix. There were no significant differences in tear film break-up times and goblet cell numbers in eyes with corneal sequestra and those without sequestra. Three conjunctival swabs from two of 11 cats with sequestra were positive with PCR for Herpes felis virus. These included one cat with bilateral sequestra and one cat with unilateral corneal sequestrum. CONCLUSIONS: The pathogenesis of feline corneal sequestra does not appear to be linked primarily to abnormal goblet cell numbers, qualitative tear film abnormalities, and accelerated tear film break-up time.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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