MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759915001 · doi:10.1002/bdr2.1100

Pre‐ and Postnatal Development of the Eye: A Species Comparison

2017· review· en· W2759915001 on OpenAlex

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

VenueBirth Defects Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinopathy of Prematurity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNictitating membraneEye developmentBiologyHuman eyeZoologyPhenotypeGeneticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this review paper, literature data on pre- and postnatal eye development are compared between humans and nonclinical species that are commonly used for human safety assessment, namely, mouse, rat, rabbit, dog, minipig, and nonhuman primates. Some new data on rat and minipig ocular development are also included. This compiled information can be helpful for species selection in juvenile toxicity studies or assist in the interpretation of (non)clinical data during pediatric drug development. Despite some differences in developmental windows and anatomical peculiarities, such as the lack of a fovea centralis in nonprimate species or the presence of a nictitating membrane in some nonclinical species, the functioning and development of the eye is strikingly similar between humans and other mammals. As such, all commonly used nonclinical species appear to be relatively good models for human eye development, although some practical constraints such as size may be a limiting factor. Birth Defects Research 109:1540-1567, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.353
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.161 · 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