Longitudinal <i>In Vivo</i> Imaging of Cones in the Alert Chicken
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of in vivo measurements of cones and their distributions as a function of normal growth without adaptive optics (AO) and also discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of AO imaging in the chick, an animal model of myopia. METHODS: Chicks were obtained on the day of hatching. Axial length and retinoscopy measurements were performed on days 0 and 14. Chicks were imaged on the day of hatching and 14 days later in a custom-built confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Angular densities, linear cone spacings, and cone packing arrangements were determined. RESULTS: Four subarrays of hexagonally packed cones were identified on both days and, from their angular spacings, appear to correspond to different cone types. There were no significant changes in angular cone density with growth and linear spacings of cones increased with growth. This is true for both overall densities and those of the cone subtypes. There was no change in the percent of hexagonally packed cones with growth. CONCLUSIONS: Cones can be imaged longitudinally in vivo in the awake chick. The packing arrangement of cones is 40% hexagonally packed. Although AO is not necessary to visualize the cones, including the subarrays of like cones, some closely spaced cones of different types may not be resolved. Most importantly, there is a need to use a larger pupil with growth to maintain the same linear resolution in the larger eye. Novel longitudinal imaging techniques and methods in animal models are shown here to give insights into normal development and, in future, will give insights into visual disorders and diseases, including myopia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".