MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2961502695 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001398

Conjunctival Redness Response to Corneal Stimulation

2019· article· en· W2961502695 on OpenAlexafffund
Emmanuel Alabi, Trefford Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStimulationStimulus (psychology)Analysis of varianceMedicineCorneaOphthalmologyRepeated measures designSensory thresholdAnesthesiaInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SIGNIFICANCE: The conjunctiva is an integral component of the ocular surface, and its vasculature forms a terminal vascular bed of the human internal carotid artery. No research on the response of conjunctival vasculature to ocular surface stimulation exists; however, it is essential to understand the local physiological and pathological responses to such a stimulus. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the ocular redness levels in healthy participants after the application of noxious corneal stimulation. METHODS: A computerized Belmonte pneumatic esthesiometer was used to determine detection thresholds (using ascending method of limits) and to randomly deliver mechanical and chemical stimuli from levels of detection threshold to twice the threshold in 50% steps to the central cornea of 15 healthy subjects. For each suprathreshold stimulus, a spectrophotometer was used to measure ipsilateral and contralateral conjunctival redness before and after delivery of the corneal stimulus. Redness between the stimulated and unstimulated eyes was analyzed using dependent t tests. The effects of stimulus intensity and modality on conjunctival redness were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Tukey honestly significant difference tests were used for all post hoc analyses. P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: In mechanical and chemical stimulation experiments, the stimulated eye became redder than the unstimulated eye (all t tests, P > .05). On average, redness increased from baseline as the corneal stimulus intensity increased with corneal stimulation (ANOVA, P < .05). Chemical stimulation produced greater conjunctival redness than did mechanical stimulation at all stimulation levels (ANOVA, P < .05; all Tukey honestly significant difference tests, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Stimulation of the central cornea by noxious mechanical and chemical stimuli evokes a dose-dependent autonomic conjunctival redness response. Chemical stimulation of the cornea seems to evoke a greater response compared with mechanical stimulation. This study serves as a basis for the characterization of the local stimulus-response neural circuitry relating nociceptive ocular surface stimuli to autonomic responses.

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)0.000
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 score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.393 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207