Retinal ganglion cell endowment is correlated with optic tract fiber cross section, not density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is substantial variation between healthy individuals in the number of retinal ganglion cells (RGC) in the eye, with commensurate variation in the number of axons in the optic tracts. Fixel-based analysis of diffusion MR produces estimates of fiber density (FD) and cross section (FC). Using these fixel measurements along with retinal imaging, we asked if individual differences in RGC tissue volume are correlated with individual differences in FD and FC measurements obtained from the optic tracts, and subsequent structures along the cortical visual pathway. We find that RGC endowment is correlated with optic tract FC, but not with FD. RGC volume had a decreasing relationship with measurements from subsequent regions of the visual system (LGN volume, optic radiation FC/FD, and V1 surface area). However, we also found that the variations in each visual area were correlated with the variations in its immediately adjacent visual structure. We only observed these serial correlations when FC is used as the measure of interest for the optic tract and radiations, but no significant relationship was found when FD represented these white matter structures. From these results, we conclude that the variations in RGC endowment, LGN volume, and V1 surface area are better predicted by the overall cross section of the optic tract and optic radiations as compared to the intra-axonal restricted signal component of these white matter pathways. Additionally, the presence of significant correlations between adjacent, but not distant, anatomical structures suggests that there are multiple, local sources of anatomical variation along the visual pathway.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".