MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W373681543 · doi:10.1167/iovs.14-16166

Understanding the Process of Corneal Endothelial Morphological Change In Vitro

2015· review· en· W373681543 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Roy, Véronique Leclerc, Jean‐Michel Bourget, Mathieu Thériault, Stéphanie Proulx

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Saint-Sacrement
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorneal endotheliumEndotheliumCell biologyEndothelial stem cellCorneaProcess (computing)CellRegenerative medicineBiologyCell typeIn vitroNeuroscienceImmunologyStem cellComputer scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corneal endothelial cells often adopt a fibroblastic-like morphology in culture, a process that has been attributed to epithelial- or endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT or EndMT). Although being extensively studied in other cell types, this transition is less well characterized in the corneal endothelium. Because of their neuroectodermal origin and their in vivo mitotic arrest, corneal endothelial cells represent a particular tissue that deserves more attention. This review article presents the basic principles underlying EMT/EndMT, with emphasis on the current knowledge regarding the corneal endothelium. Furthermore, this review discusses cell culture conditions and major cell signaling pathways that have been identified as EndMT-triggering factors. Finally, it summarizes strategies that have been developed to inhibit EndMT in corneal endothelial cell culture. The review of current studies on corneal and classical EndMT highlights some research avenues to pursue in the future and underscores the need to extend our knowledge of this process in order to optimize usage of these cells in regenerative medicine.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.380
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.073 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations119
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual ScienceSame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207