Using a triphasic model to describe the permeation of dimethyl sulfoxide in porcine corneoscleral discs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corneal blindness can be treated by keratoplasty but a lack of readily available corneal donor tissue for this procedure remains a challenge. Cryopreservation can facilitate the long-term storage of tissue but effective protocols for cryopreserving cornea have yet to be developed. Mathematical modelling can guide protocol design, but previously used models are not comprehensive. A comprehensive model should describe the tissue's shrink-swell response and the cryoprotectant concentration throughout the tissue during cryoprotectant loading. Such a model exists for articular cartilage based on a biomechanical triphasic approach. We explored the applicability of this model for describing cryoprotectant permeation in porcine corneas by fitting it to experimental data for the permeation of dimethyl sulfoxide into porcine corneoscleral discs. The model provided as good of a fit for corneoscleral discs data as it did for articular cartilage data, presenting promise for its use in the design of cryopreservation protocols for corneas.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".