MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767270224 · doi:10.3791/56203

Dissection of Human Retina and RPE-Choroid for Proteomic Analysis

2017· article· en· W2767270224 on OpenAlexaff
Thiago Cabral, Marcus A. Toral, Gabriel Velez, Anuradha Gore, Stephen H. Tsang, Alexander G. Bassuk, Vinit B. Mahajan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Eye InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsRetinaChoroidRetinalMacular degenerationRetinal pigment epitheliumFovealDissection (medical)OphthalmologyBiologyProteomicsPathologyMedicineAnatomyNeuroscienceGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human retina is composed of the sensory neuroretina and the underlying retinal pigmented epithelium (RPE), which is firmly complexed to the vascular choroid layer. Different regions of the retina are anatomically and molecularly distinct, facilitating unique functions and demonstrating differential susceptibility to disease. Proteomic analysis of each of these regions and layers can provide vital insights into the molecular process of many diseases, including Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD), diabetes mellitus, and glaucoma. However, separation of retinal regions and layers is essential before quantitative proteomic analysis can be accomplished. Here, we describe a method for dissection and collection of the foveal, macular, and peripheral retinal regions and underlying RPE-choroid complex, involving regional punch biopsies and manual removal of tissue layers from a human eye.One-dimensional SDS-PAGE as well as downstream proteomic analysis, such as liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), can be used to identify proteins in each dissected retinal layer, revealing molecular biomarkers for retinal 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.459 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207