Evaluation of iris functional capillary density in experimental local and systemic inflammation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ocular microcirculation represents an important target to treat inflammatory diseases of eye, where impairment of microvascular blood flow plays key role as, for example, in anterior uveitis. To evaluate novel interventions targeting the microcirculation, appropriate and reliable tools to study this particular microvascular bed are needed. Intravital microscopy (IVM) belongs to several methods allowing evaluation of microcirculation experimentally, even in small animals. The aim of our study was to examine the iridial microcirculation (IMIC) in uveitis induced by local or systemic endotoxin administration in rats and mice by IVM and to propose new parameters to quantify the changes within the IMIC. Systemic inflammation was induced in rats by intravenous endotoxin administration, control group received normal saline intravenously. Local inflammation was induced in mice by intravitreal endotoxin administration, the control group received normal saline intravitreally. IVM of IMIC was performed in animals receiving systemic endotoxin prior injection and 1 and 2 h afterwards, respectively, in animals receiving intravitreal endotoxin/saline prior local injection and 5 h afterwards. Obtained video recordings were analyzed off-line. Functional capillary density (FCD) and dysfunctional capillary density (DCD) were evaluated for description of IMIC, and calculation of FCD/DCD ratio was performed. In systemic inflammation, FCD was significantly decreased compared to control animals. In local inflammation, the number of functional capillaries in the IMIC was significantly reduced following the endotoxin challenge. Analysis of the DCD revealed a significant increase in capillaries with reduced perfusion after intravitreal endotoxin administration and right shift of the FCD/DCD ratio was observed after endotoxin local injection. Detecting and quantifying changes in IMIC during systemic or local inflammation in experimental animals by IVM was feasible. Therefore, IVM of the IMIC represents a valuable tool to evaluate and quantify inflammatory changes in experimental eye disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".