MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087562764 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.03.038

Assessment of epithelial integrity and cell viability in epithelial flaps prepared with the epi-LASIK procedure

2007· article· en· W2087562764 on OpenAlexaff
Hidetoshi Tanioka, Osamu Hieda, Satoshi Kawasaki, Yoshinori Nakai, Shigeru Kinoshita

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrevention of Organ Failure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropidium iodideBasement membraneLASIKViability assayCalceinEpitheliumBasal (medicine)OphthalmologyMedicinePathologyChemistryAndrologyAnatomyCellMembraneApoptosisInternal medicineProgrammed cell death

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess the histological integrity and cell viability in epithelial flaps prepared with epikeratomes. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine and The Baptist Eye Clinic, Kyoto, Japan. METHODS: Epithelial flaps were prepared by epi-LASIK surgery. After immediate fixation, they were examined by light and electron microscopy. To assess cell viability in fresh epithelial flaps, biostaining experiments were performed using propidium iodide (PI), calcein-AM, and Hoechst 33342 dye. In addition, some epithelial flaps were organ-cultured for 24 hours. RESULTS: Light and electron microscopy showed that most of the inspected areas showed nuclei and cytoplasm at significantly reduced density and discontinuity of the basement membrane. Biostaining experiments showed that approximately 90% of the basal cells in epithelial flaps were PI-positive dead cells; organ cultures showed detachment of basal cells from the epithelial flap after 24 hours of incubation. CONCLUSION: Most basal cells in epithelial flaps prepared with different epikeratome devices were dead.

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)0.004
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207