Light‐Induced Retinopathy in neonatal rats: A new retinal degeneration slow model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose We showed that compared to adult rats (AR), the retina of neonatal rats (NR) is significantly more resistant to light damage. The purpose of this study was to determine the minimum exposure time that the neonatal retina requires to cause an adult‐like retinopathy at long term. Methods Starting at postnatal age 14 days (P14), NR were exposed to 10,000 lux for various lengths of time [1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 16 consecutive days (d)]. ERGs and retinal histology were performed at predetermined time points. Results Maximal effect was obtained after 3 days of exposure [50% control ONL thickness (p < .05) compared to 97% and 75% for 1 and 2 days] beyond which no further significant (p > 0.05) thinning of the ONL was observed. In contrast, a significant (p < 0.05) dose‐dependent decrease of all ERG components is observed immediately following the cessation of light exposure. Athough non‐significant structural damage could be documented immediately following 1 day of exposure, when re‐examined at P70, the photoreceptor loss was almost identical (p > 0.05) to the damage produced following a 14 day long exposure. Conclusions Our findings suggest that in NR, a one day long light exposure is sufficient to produce, at long term, a significant retinal degeneration that will significantly impact the retinal structure and function and that in spite of the fact that no measurable structural and functional retinal anomalies could be demonstrated immediately following this 1‐day exposure (i.e. at P15). Our light‐induced slow retinal degeneration model thus represents an attractive (especially its dose‐dependent nature) alternative (to other more genetic models) to study the pathophysiology of photoreceptor‐induced retinal degeneration and therapeutic strategies to counteract it. Funding: CIHR and FRQ‐S, under the frame of E‐Rare‐2, the ERA‐Net for Research on Rare Diseases.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".