Tear Proteomics in Infants at Risk of Retinopathy of Prematurity: A Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This feasibility study investigated the practicability of collecting and analyzing tear proteins from preterm infants at risk of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). We sought to identify any tear proteins which might be implicated in the pathophysiology of ROP as well as prognostic markers. Methods: Schirmer's test was used to obtain tear samples from premature babies, scheduled for ROP screening, after parental informed consent. Mass spectrometry was used for proteomic analysis. Results: Samples were collected from 12 infants, which were all adequate for protein analysis. Gestational age ranged from 25 + 6 to 31 + 1 weeks. Postnatal age at sampling ranged from 19 to 66 days. One infant developed self-limiting ROP. Seven hundred one proteins were identified; 261 proteins identified in the majority of tear samples, including several common tear proteins, were used for analyses. Increased risk of ROP as determined by the postnatal growth ROP (G-ROP) criteria was associated with an increase in lactate dehydrogenase B chain in tears. Older infants demonstrated increased concentration of immunoglobulin complexes within their tear samples and two sets of twins in the cohort showed exceptionally similar proteomes, supporting validity of the analysis. Conclusions: Tear sampling by Schirmer test strips and subsequent proteomic analysis by mass spectrometry in preterm infants is feasible. A larger study is required to investigate the potential use of tear proteomics in identification of ROP. Translational Relevance: Tear sampling and subsequent mass spectrometry in preterm infants is feasible. Investigation of the premature tear proteome may increase our understanding of retinal development and provide noninvasive biomarkers for identification of treatment-warranted ROP.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".