MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998814183 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227771

Pupil response to noxious corneal stimulation

2020· article· en· W2998814183 on OpenAlexafffund
Emmanuel Alabi, Trefford Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)PupilPupillary responsePupillometryStimulationSomatosensory systemPupillary light reflexCorneaAnalysis of varianceOphthalmologyNoxious stimulusMedicineAudiologyRepeated measures designPupil diameterNociceptionSensory thresholdPsychologyNeuroscienceInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Ocular somatosensory-autonomic reflexes play critical roles in maintaining homeostasis of the eye. The purpose of this study was to investigate the pupil response to nociceptive corneal stimuli. METHODS: A Waterloo-Belmonte pneumatic esthesiometer was used to determine detection thresholds and 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 stimulus, imaging of the stimulated/unstimulated eye was performed using two modified/calibrated Logitech c920 digital cameras for 4 seconds each, pre/post stimulus capture. The data were processed with a custom segmentation algorithm to help identify the pupils and pupil diameter was measured using ImageJ software. Pupil dilation response differences between the ipsi- and contralateral eye was analyzed using dependent t-tests. The effect of stimulus intensity, modality and sex of subjects were analyzed using repeated measures. RESULTS: In mechanical and chemical stimulation experiments, there was no difference in pupil responses between the stimulated eye and the unstimulated eye, (all dependent T-test p > 0.05). On average, pupil diameter increased from baseline as the corneal stimulus intensity increased. This happened regardless of whether mechanical or chemical stimulation occurred (ANOVA p < 0.05). At 200% threshold, pupil diameter was greater than at all stimulus intensities (Tukey HSD, all p < 0.05). Based on stimulus intensity, females had greater pupil diameters than males at levels of 150% threshold and 200% threshold (ANOVA p < 0.05, all Tukey HSD p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study serves as a basis for the characterization of the local stimulus-response neural circuitry relating nociceptive stimuli to autonomic responses and in combination with our work on completely separate autonomic circuits of bulbar conjunctival vessel dilation and reflex tearing suggests that the monotonic measurements of redness, tearing and pupils provide accurate, separable responses that reflect painful stimulus intensity.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207