MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059903089 · doi:10.1159/000265369

Direct in vivo Measurement of Corneal Epithelial Metabolic Activity Using a Polarographic Oxygen Sensor

2009· article· en· W2059903089 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxygenCorneaIn vivoChemistryPolarographyOxygeneOxygen sensorDiffusionLimiting oxygen concentrationBiophysicsCorneal epitheliumOphthalmologyBiologyMedicineInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The component oxygen fluxes that constitute a single recording of corneal oxygen uptake when a polarographic oxygen sensor (POS) is placed in contact with the cornea were determined in the in vivo rabbit eye by removing the epithelium and injecting an air bubble into the anterior chamber. The relative contribution of epithelial oxygen consumption, stromal oxygen consumption and diffusion were approximately 55, 5 and 40%, respectively. It is demonstrated that differences in corneal oxygen uptake rates recorded with a POS primarily indicate differences in epithelial metabolic activity. Changes in epithelial metabolism can be determined by measuring both corneal oxygen uptake and corneal thickness. For example, if corneal thickness is constant, differences in epithelial oxygen flux (a) between two eyes of one person, or (b) before and after a procedure in the same eye, can be calculated by multiplying the difference in oxygen consumption measured with a POS by a factor of 1.8.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.241 · 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