MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116168978 · doi:10.1167/5.3.2

Lenticular accommodation in relation to ametropia: The chick model

2005· article· en· W2116168978 on OpenAlexaff
Vivian Choh, J. G. Sivak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccommodationRefractive errorSpherical aberrationVitreous chamberLens (geology)OptometryOpticsOphthalmologyPresbyopiaMedicineEye diseasePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our goal was to determine whether experimentally induced ametropias have an effect on lenticular accommodation and spherical aberration. Form-deprivation myopia and hyperopia were induced in one eye of hatchling chicks by application of a translucent goggle and +15 D lens, respectively. After 7 days, eyes were enucleated and lenses were optically scanned prior to accommodation, during accommodation, and after accommodation. Accommodation was induced by electrical stimulation of the ciliary nerve. Lenticular focal lengths for form-deprived eyes were significantly shorter than for their controls and accommodation-associated changes in focal length were significantly smaller in myopic eyes compared to their controls. For eyes imposed with +15 D blur, focal lengths were longer than those for their controls and accommodative changes were greater. Spherical aberration of the lens increased with accommodation in both form-deprived and lens-treated birds, but induction of ametropia had no effect on lenticular spherical aberration in general. Nonmonotonicity from lenticular spherical aberration increased during accommodation but effects of refractive error were equivocal. The crystalline lens contributes to refractive error changes of the eye both in the case of myopia and hyperopia. These changes are likely attributable to global changes in the size and shape 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 score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207