The effect of Blue‐Light exposure in an ocular melanoma animal model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: Uveal melanoma (UM) cells lines, when exposed to blue light in vitro, show a significant increase in proliferation. In order to see if the same effect would be seen in vivo, we investigated the influence of blue‐light exposure in an animal model of UM. Methods: Twenty albino rabbits were injected with 1 million human UM cells (92.1) into the suprachoroidal space of the eye. Animals were immunosuppressed using cyclosporin A throughout the 8 week long experiment. The animals were divided into two groups of 10 animals each. The experimental group was exposed to blue‐light, while the control group was protected from blue‐light using a yellow‐filter. Intraocular tumor growth was evaluated weekly by fundoscopic examination. One animal was sacrificed per week, after the 2nd week, in order to evaluate progression of the disease. The eyes were removed after sacrifice and the proliferation rates of the re‐cultured cells obtained from the intraocular tumors were performed using the Sulfordhamine‐B assay. The Student's t–test was used to compare results for statistical significance. Results: Re‐cultures of UM cells were establish from 4 and 5 rabbits of the experimental and control group respectively. Cells were re‐cultured for a very short period of time (1 passage only) in order to maintain any in vivo cellular changes. The exposure of rabbits to blue light led to an increase in proliferation of the cell lines derived from intraocular tumors compared to the control (p=0.001). Conclusions: There is increasing amount of data suggesting that Blue‐light, one of the components of visible light, may influence the progression of UM. Our results warrant further studies to relate the importance of Blue‐Light filtering lenses for UM patients.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".