Low Energy Blue Pulsed Light‐Activated Injectable Materials for Restoring Thinning Corneas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many alternatives to human donor corneas are being developed to meet the global shortage of donated tissues. However, corneal transplantation remains the gold standard for diseases resulting in thinning corneas. In this study, transparent low energy photoactivated extracellular matrix‐mimicking materials are developed for intrastromal injection to restore stromal thickness. The injectable biomaterials are comprised of short peptides and glycosaminoglycans (chondroitin, hyaluronic acid) that assemble into a hydrogel when pulsed with low‐energy blue light. The dosage of pulsed‐blue light needed for material activation is minimal at 8.5 mW cm −2 , thus circumventing any blue light cytotoxicity. Intrastromal injection of these light‐activated biomaterials in rat corneas shows that two iterations of the formulations remain stable in situ without stimulating significant inflammation or neovascularization. The use of low light intensities and the ability of the developed materials to stably rebuild and change the curvature of the cornea tissue make these formulations attractive for clinical translation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".