MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955327599 · doi:10.1167/19.6.25

The critical period for darkness-induced recovery of the vision of the amblyopic eye following early monocular deprivation

2019· article· en· W2955327599 on OpenAlexafffund
Donald E. Mitchell, Nathan A. Crowder, Kevin R. Duffy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDarknessMonocular deprivationPeriod (music)Visual acuitySensory deprivationOphthalmologyMedicineBiologyOcular dominanceArtVisual cortexNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exposure of kittens to complete darkness for 10 days has been shown (Duffy & Mitchell, 2013) to reverse the loss of visual acuity that follows a prior period of monocular deprivation (MD). In that study, recovery of acuity in the previously deprived eye was fast despite the fact that darkness was imposed 2 months after the period of MD when kittens were 3 months old. In a later study (Holman, Duffy, & Mitchell, 2018), it was demonstrated that the same period of darkness was ineffective when it was imposed on cats about 1 year old, suggesting that dark exposure may only promote recovery when applied within an early critical period. To determine the profile of this critical period, the identical period of darkness (10 days) was imposed on kittens at various ages that had all received the same 7-day period of MD from postnatal day 30 (P30). Recovery of the acuity of the deprived eye as measured by use of a jumping stand was complete when darkness was imposed prior to P186 days, but thereafter, darkness induced progressively smaller acuity improvements and was ineffective in kittens when it began at or beyond P191 days of age. These data indicate a critical period for darkness-induced recovery with an abrupt end over a 5-day period.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.284
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207