MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123007735

What Image Properties Regulate Eye Growth

2006· article· en· W3123007735 on OpenAlexaff
Robert F. Hess, Katrina L. Schmid, Serge O. Dumoulin, David Field, Darren R. Brinkworth

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatial frequencyArtificial intelligenceComputer visionImage qualityOpticsFocus (optics)Computer scienceImage formationImage (mathematics)MathematicsPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

* This article is free to read on journal website. The growth of the eye, unlike other parts of the body, is not ballistic. It is guided by visual feedback with the eventual aim being optimal focus of the retinal image or emmetropization. It has been shown in animal models that interference with the quality of the retinal image leads to a disruption to the normal growth pattern, resulting in the development of refractive errors and defocused retinal images. While it is clear that retinal images rich in pattern information are needed to control eye growth, it is unclear what particular aspect of image structure is relevant. Retinal images comprise a range of spatial frequencies at different absolute and relative contrasts and in different degrees of spatial alignment. Here we show, by using synthetic images, that it is not the local edge structure produced by relative spatial frequency alignments within an image but rather the spatial frequency composition per se that is used to regulate the growth of the eye. Furthermore, it is the absolute energy at high spatial frequencies regardless of the spectral slope that is most effective. Neither result would be expected from currently accepted ideas of how human observers judge the degree of image blur in a scene where both phase alignment and the relative energy distribution across spatial frequency (i.e., spectral slope) are important.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical InnovationSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207