MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032959611 · doi:10.17116/oftalma20201360313

Rational strategy for studying microbiome of the ocular surface of people using hard contact lenses by method of 16S rRNA gene metabarcoding

2020· article· en· W3032959611 on OpenAlexaff
Avetisov Sé, N. D. Abramova, Natalia Gogoleva, Oleg Gusev, T S Mitichkina, И А Новиков, А.М. Суббот, Elena Shagimardanova

Bibliographic record

VenueRussian Annals of Ophthalmology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobiome16S ribosomal RNABiologySerratiaMicrobiologyMetagenomicsMicroorganismCorynebacteriumBacteriaPseudomonasGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study is based on the hypothesis that high taxonomic diversity of bacteria detectable on the eye surface by molecular genetic methods is attributed to the high level of its contamination by skin microflora. Such contamination would make it problematic to identify the fractions of real ocular surface microbiome, which remains behind the one-percent cut-off threshold adopted in the metagenomic analysis. Hard contact lenses for long-wearing act as a physical filter preventing DNA contamination from random microorganisms, and at the same time providing adhesion to the living cells of bacteria and fungi. To confirm this assumption, a detailed analysis of references was carried out, supplemented by original laboratory research. MATERIAL AND METHODS: rRNA gene sequencing using 454 GS Junior (Ion Torrent) and Illumina MiSeq platforms. RESULTS: (2.1%). Analysis of the samples obtained directly from the mucosa revealed dominance of typical skin-associated microorganisms. CONCLUSION: The present study proposes a contamination-reduction algorithm for microbiological testing of the ocular surface using hard contact lenses for prolonged wearing as a carrier for microbial DNA.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussian Annals of OphthalmologySame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207