The effect of blue light exposure and use of intraocular lenses on human uveal melanoma cell lines
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
Little is known about the effect of blue light on inducing melanocytic malignant transformation. We chose to investigate the effect of blue light (475 nm wavelength) on the proliferation rates of uveal melanoma cells. In addition, we tested two different intraocular lenses to determine the possible effects of ultraviolet absorbing and blue light filtering intraocular lenses on the changes in proliferation. Four human uveal melanoma cell lines (92.1, MKT-BR, OCM-1, SP6.5) were exposed to blue light with and without the presence of ultraviolet absorbing and blue light filtering intraocular lenses. Cells covered by aluminum foil were used as a control. The proliferation rate of the cells compared with the control was then assessed using the Sulforhodamine-B proliferation assay. Cells exposed to blue light showed a statistically significant (P<0.05) increase in proliferation. Those exposed to blue light through a standard ultraviolet absorbing intraocular lens showed a smaller increase in proliferation, whereas those exposed with a blue light filtering intraocular lens showed no increase in proliferation than the control in all four cell lines. The exposure of cells to blue light led to an increase in proliferation in all cell lines compared with the control. The use of blue light filtering intraocular lenses abolished these increases in proliferation in the four cell lines. These results indicate that blue light filtering intraocular lenses may have a protective effect on the proliferation rates of uveal melanoma cells exposed to blue light.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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