Altered corneal structures in form‐deprived highly myopic chicks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims/Purpose: Myopia is a leading cause of correctable and preventable vision loss worldwide, but the relationship between myopia development and growth of the anterior segment, particularly the cornea, has not been well established. This study aims to investigate whether experimental induction of myopia influences corneal structures in animals. Methods: Ten chicks were unilaterally form deprived by covering their right eyes with translucent diffusers at post‐hatching day 6 (P6). Refractive state, corneal shape, and ocular axial dimensions were measured at 4‐day intervals until P18 using a Hartinger refractometer, a custom‐made videokeratography system, and an A‐scan ultrasonographer, respectively. Parameters in treated vs control eyes were compared at the end of treatment. Repeated one‐way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis, and all parameters were expressed as mean ± SD. Results: At the end of treatment, form‐deprived eyes were myopic (−29.48 ± 8.26D vs. ‐0.61 ± 0.32D) and axially elongated (11.15 ± 0.55 mm vs. 9.51 ± 0.20 mm). At baseline (P6), treated and fellow contralateral eyes had similar corneal power (132.22 ± 6.37D vs. 132.64 ± 5.48D, p = 0.86) and thickness (167.93 ± 6.80 μm vs. 166.43 ± 7.27 μm, p = 0.63), but at P18 form‐deprived eyes had slower corneal flattening and thickening, resulting in significantly steeper (117.73 ± 5.03D vs. 113.22 ± 3.44D, p < 0.05) and thinner corneas (176.80 ± 7.52 μm vs. 192.35 ± 5.62 μm, p < 0.001) than fellow contralateral eyes. Repeated measures correlation analysis further indicated that axial elongation from P6 to P18 was significantly associated with corneal steepening (rrm = 0.77, p < 0.001) and thinning (rrm = −0.69, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study provides insights into the impact of form deprivation myopia on corneal structures in juvenile animals. Specifically, the corneas of form‐deprived eyes were steeper and thinner because the natural corneal flattening and thickening processes were decelerated by treatment. Further studies are warranted to reveal the mechanisms responsible for this association between development of refractive error and corneal structure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".