Short-term oxidative status of lens and aqueous humor after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Oxidation in the anterior ocular segment is associated with cataractogenesis and possible complications to corneal endothelium. We investigated whether oxidation occurred in the rabbit anterior ocular segment shortly after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). METHODS: Rabbits were treated unilaterally with PRK, the other eye serving as a control. Aqueous humor sampled shortly after treatment was assayed spectrophotometrically for hydrogen peroxide using ferrous oxidation in xylenol in the presence (group 1; n=10), or absence of oxygen (group 2; n=8). Oxidized glutathione and malondialdehyde levels were measured in lenses by spectrophotometry and HPLC. RESULTS: Hydrogen peroxide concentration of aqueous humor was not different between treated (77 +/- 36 microM) and control eyes (88 +/- 34 microM) in the oxygen group or the nonoxygenated group (treated eyes: 6.7 +/- 5.4 microM and control eyes: 5.5 +/- 4.7 microM). Peroxide levels did not correspond to endogenous H2O2 but presumably reflected action on ascorbic acid. There was no difference in the percent of oxidized glutathione between experimental and control eyes. Malondialdehyde could not be detected in the lens of treated or control eyes, despite good sensitivity in recovery assays. CONCLUSION: Based on these assays, there is no evidence that PRK oxidizes the aqueous humor or the lens of treated rabbits within 10 minutes of treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".