The effect of UVB radiation on the optical quality of rainbow trout eye-lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study followed changes in the optical quality of teleost eye-lenses following exposure to non-ionizing UVB radiation and was carried out as an adjunct to a wider ongoing study on the effects of ionizing radiation on vertebrate eye-lenses. The lenses of rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) were excised and cultured in vitro, then exposed to 0.2 J cm −2 of UVB radiation. The optical quality of the lenses was measured daily until the end-point of full surface clouding was observed. Optical quality assessment was accomplished through laser focal analysis, which is a method of measuring changes in lens optical function while the lens is still transparent. Lens optical quality is quantified by measuring focal lengths and focal length variability in each lens. Our study found a significant difference in lens quality in irradiated lenses compared to control lenses 11 days after irradiation. Irradiated lenses also showed a reduction in optical quality on the last day of transparency before lens damage progressed to full surface clouding. Irradiated lenses also maintained transparency in culture for longer than control lenses. Therefore, we have shown that UVB decreases the optical quality of vertebrate eye-lenses and potentially induces a stress response in the maintenance of lens transparency.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".