MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lipopolysaccharide Entry in the Damaged Cornea and Specific Uptake by Polymorphonuclear Neutrophils

2000· article· en· W2098744730 on OpenAlexaff
Clyde Schultz, André G. Buret, Merle S. Olson, Howard Ceri, R. R. Read, Douglas W. Morck

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection and Immunity · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorneaLipopolysaccharideFluoresceinFluorescein isothiocyanateBiologyCorneal epitheliumStainingEpitheliumInfiltration (HVAC)Stromal cellMolecular biologyPathologyMicrobiologyImmunologyFluorescenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is an important agent of induction of ocular pathology following corneal injury or wearing of contaminated contact lenses. The mechanism of LPS uptake through the corneal epithelium is unclear, and the role played by inflammatory cells in this phenomenon has not been previously assessed. Fluorescein isothiocyanate-labeled LPS from Escherichia coli was deposited onto the abraded corneas of New Zealand White rabbits. Epifluorescence microscopy of living excised corneas revealed diffuse LPS staining in the epithelial and stromal layers only in the vicinity of the abrasion. In addition, specific cellular uptake of LPS was suggested by fluorescence staining of cells along the abrasion site. In a second series of experiments, an anti-CD18 polyclonal antibody was used to block infiltration of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN) into the cornea. In these experiments, a diffuse distribution of fluorescent LPS was still observed along the abrasion, but the specific cellular uptake was abolished. The findings indicate that LPS enters the cornea via diffuse penetration at sites of injury and that specific cellular uptake of LPS occurs within the cornea via PMN which have migrated into the damaged tissue.

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 score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations38
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection and ImmunitySame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207