Dark-rearing promotes drastic improvement of visual acuity in the amblyopic eye of lid-sutured kittens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report extends findings (Duffy & Mitchell, 2013) of a dramatic recovery of vision in the deprived eye of amblyopic kittens following a short ‘dark-pulse’ (a 10 day period of darkness) to situations of clinical relevance. To this end, the initial deprivation began at post-natal day 7 rather than post-natal day 30. As before, the dark-pulse was imposed either immediately after the initial monocular deprivation, or was delayed several weeks after stable amblyopia was establsihed. In some animals, this dark-pulse was shortened, or disrupted by short periods of daily binocular visual experience. The effects on the visual acuity and alignment acuity of the two eyes were documented as well as the effects on binocular depth perception. The benefits of a short dark-pulse were identical to those of the prior study. A dark-pulse of 5 days was ineffective as was a dark-pulse interrupted daily by light for 30-minutes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".