MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bioengineered corneas: how close are we?

2003· review· en· W2334256357 on OpenAlex
David Carlsson, Fengfu Li, Shigeto Shimmura, May Griffith

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Ophthalmology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorneaRegeneration (biology)MedicineRefractive surgeryCorneal epitheliumBiomedical engineeringTissue engineeringOphthalmologyCell biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioengineered corneas are substitutes for human donor tissue that are designed to replace part or the full thickness of damaged or diseased corneas. They range from prosthetic devices that solely address replacement of the cornea's function to tissue-engineered hydrogels that allow some regeneration of the host tissue. In addition, there are also bioengineered lenticules that may be implanted into the cornea to improve vision by altering the refractive properties of the eye, an alternative procedure to refractive surgery. In recent years, there have been significant developments in many areas of bioengineered corneas, such as the clinical trials of an artificial cornea designed as a prosthesis, the development of completely natural corneal replacements, and the development of biosynthetic matrices that permit host tissue regeneration. For correction of refractive errors, a synthetic corneal onlay that allows stable overgrowth of epithelium appears to be promising.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.172 · 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