Freeze-drying as an alternative method of human sclera preservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effect of preserving sclera samples in either 95% ethanol or freeze-dried. METHODS: Ninety-six samples of human sclera were studied. Half of them were freeze-dried and half preserved in 95% ethanol. Preservation periods of 18, 45, 90 or 174 days were studied. Automated immunostaining was carried out in the Ventana BenchMarkR LT platform using collagen 1 and fibronectin antibodies. Histological staining was also performed with hematoxilin-eosin and Masson trichrome. Samples were classified according to the degree of collagen fiber parallelism (0-2), intensity of Masson staining (0-2), and the expression of both antibodies (0-3). Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were applied to compare preservation methods and p-values below 0.05 were considered to ensure statistical significance. RESULTS: Relevant results were found in three situations: (i) Friedman's test showed better collagen fiber integrity in the freeze-dried group rehydrated after 174-days as compared to the 90-day group; (ii) Wilcoxon's test showed better collagen fiber integrity in the freeze-dried group after 18 and 174 days as compared to the ethanol group; (iii) the freeze-dried group disclosed higher immunohistochemical expression for COL-1 antibody in the sclera samples rehydrated after 45, 90 and 174 days as compared to the ones rehydrated after 18 days. CONCLUSION: Histological and immunohistochemical analysis showed freeze-drying to be a superior method for sclera preservation as compared to 95% ethanol. This technique provides an easy method to manipulate tissue, with longer shelf life, and storage at room temperature.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".