MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083417768 · doi:10.1002/ar.20579

Conjunctival Lymphoid Follicles in New World Rodents

2007· article· en· W2083417768 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roger Astley, James Chodosh, William Caire, Gregory M. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Anatomical Record · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsPeromyscusRodentBiologyFornixZoologyPathologyConjunctivaImmunologyEcologyMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report for the first time, the detection of conjunctival lymphoid follicles (CLF) in the eyes of New World rodents. CLF were found in 7 of the 15 species examined, 6 of the 10 genera, and in at least one individual in four families of rodents. These follicles are dense collections of leukocytes in the conjunctival substantia propria with a thinned overlying epithelium lacking in goblet cells. Although the precise location of CLF within the conjunctiva varied from species to species, all CLF were found in the fornix of the conjunctival sac. In general, size and complexity of CLF varied with the size of the eye; the larger the eye, the larger and more complex the CLF. Our findings also reveal that some species of New World rodents, like the majority of Old World rodents examined in this and previous studies might lack CLF. However, until larger samples are examined, this is difficult to state with certainty. Consequently, the presence/absence of CLF at this point might not be informative for phylogenetic comparisons. Our findings also suggest the deer mouse, Peromyscus maniculatus, might serve as a useful model species for studying ocular infections and immunology of the eye.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Anatomical RecordSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207