MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2469599446 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158082

Strain Differences in Light-Induced Retinopathy

2016· article· en· W2469599446 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna Polosa, Hyba Bessaklia, Pierre Lachapelle

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRetinaRetinalHistologyJuvenileElectroretinographyBiologyRetinopathyOphthalmologyMedicineAnatomyInternal medicineEndocrinologyGeneticsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to better understand the role of ocular pigmentation and genetics in light-induced retinal damage. Adult pigmented [Long Evans (LE) and Brown Norway (BN)] and albino [Sprague Dawley (SD) and Lewis (LW)] rats were exposed to a bright cyclic light for 6 consecutive days and where compared with juvenile animals exposed to the same bright light environment from postnatal age 14 to 28. Flash ERGs and retinal histology were performed at predetermined days (D) post-light exposure. At D1, ERGs were similar in all adult groups with no recordable a-waves and residual b-waves. A transient recovery was noticed at D30 in the LW and LE only [b-wave: 18% and 25% of their original amplitude respectively]. Histology revealed that BN retina was the most damaged, while LE retina was best preserved. SD and LW rats were almost as damaged as BN rats. In contrast, the retina of juvenile BN was almost as resistant to the bright light exposure as that of juvenile LE rats. Our results strongly suggest that, although ocular pigmentation and genetic background are important factors in regulating the severity of light-induced retinal damage, the age of the animal at the onset of light exposure appears to be the most important determining factor.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicRetinal Development and Disorders→French-language works237,207→