Corneal, Limbal, and Conjunctival Epithelium of Bovine Eyes Imaged In Vitro by Using a Confocal Laser Scanning Microscope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide a description of the distribution and cell morphology, by using fluorescent markers and confocal laser scanning microscopy, of the corneal, limbal, and conjunctival epithelium of bovine eyes in vitro. METHODS: Fresh enucleated bovine eyes were dissected within 2 hours postmortem. Central cornea, limbus, and bulbar conjunctiva were imaged with confocal microscopy after staining with acridine orange (AO) or calcein-acetoxymethyl and ethidium homodimer-1. Epithelial thickness, cell density, cell lamination, and cell morphology were evaluated at these 3 locations. RESULTS: Corneal epithelium was the thickest, and the conjunctival epithelium was the thinnest. The cell morphology was similar to that found in previous histologic studies, and the cell density gradually decreased from the basal to superficial layers. Nuclear AO staining particles increased from basal to superficial cells. Limbal superficial epithelial cells showed less AO staining than corneal and conjunctival superficial cells. CONCLUSIONS: Confocal results of the corneal central, limbal, and conjunctival morphology are similar to those found in traditional microscopic observations. Bovine central corneal epithelium is thicker than limbal epithelium. However, the nuclear AO staining pattern of unfixed ocular surface epithelium of bovine eyes in vitro might represent the cell differentiation status. With the aid of the fluorescence dye, confocal laser scanning microscopy can provide unique morphometric information about corneal, limbal, and conjunctival epithelial cells.
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 | 0.000 | 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".