MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940782914 · doi:10.1155/2019/7624837

Fast Recovery of the Amblyopic Eye Acuity of Kittens following Brief Exposure to Total Darkness Depends on the Fellow Eye

2019· article· en· W2940782914 on OpenAlexafffund
Donald E. Mitchell, Elise M Aronitz, Philip Bobbie-Ansah, Nathan A. Crowder, Kevin R. Duffy

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Plasticity · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDarknessMonocular deprivationVisual acuityOphthalmologySensory deprivationMonocularMedicineOptometryPsychologyOcular dominanceBiologyOpticsVisual cortexNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies conducted on kittens have revealed that the reduced visual acuity of the deprived eye following a short period of monocular deprivation imposed in early life is reversed quickly following a 10-day period spent in total darkness. This study explored the contribution of the fellow eye to the darkness-induced recovery of the acuity of the deprived eye. Upon emergence of kittens from darkness, the fellow eye was occluded for different lengths of time in order to investigate its effects on either the speed or the extent of the recovery of acuity of the deprived eye. Occlusion of the fellow eye for even a day immediately following the period spent in darkness blocked any recovery of the acuity of the deprived eye. Moreover, occlusion of the fellow eye two days after the period of darkness blocked any further visual recovery beyond that achieved in the short period when both eyes were open. The results imply that the darkness-induced recovery of the acuity of the deprived eye depends upon, and is guided by, neural activity in the mature neural connections previously established by the fellow eye.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural PlasticitySame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207