MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320206992 · doi:10.1021/jf503689c

Blueberry Effects on Dark Vision and Recovery after Photobleaching: Placebo-Controlled Crossover Studies

2014· article· en· W2320206992 on OpenAlexafffund
Wilhelmina Kalt, Jane E. McDonald, Sherry Fillmore, François Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaU.S. Highbush Blueberry Council
KeywordsAnthocyaninCrossover studyPlaceboPhotobleachingOphthalmologyVisual acuityMedicineChemistryFood scienceOpticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical evidence for anthocyanin benefits in night vision is controversial. This paper presents two human trials investigating blueberry anthocyanin effects on dark adaptation, functional night vision, and vision recovery after retinal photobleaching. One trial, S2 (n = 72), employed a 3 week intervention and a 3 week washout, two anthocyanin doses (271 and 7.11 mg cyanidin 3-glucoside equivalents (C3g eq)), and placebo. The other trial, L1 (n = 59), employed a 12 week intervention and an 8 week washout and tested one dose (346 mg C3g eq) and placebo. In both S2 and L1 neither dark adaptation nor night vision was improved by anthocyanin intake. However, in both trials anthocyanin consumption hastened the recovery of visual acuity after photobleaching. In S2 both anthocyanin doses were effective (P = 0.014), and in L1 recovery was improved at 8 weeks (P = 0.027) and 12 weeks (P = 0.030). Although photobleaching recovery was hastened by anthocyanins, it is not known whether this improvement would have an impact on everyday vision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207