Gradient Myopic Defocus Causes Chick Scleral Tissue Reinforcement and Structural Scleral Remodeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine histological effects of myopia progression control (MPC) lens-induced refractive changes on scleral remodeling in chicks. METHODS: 24 Ross-Ross chicks were raised for 14 days. 6 chicks wore conventional -10D lenses for 7 days, followed by no lenses for 7 days. 6 chicks wore conventional -10D lenses for the full 14 days. 6 chicks wore conventional -10D lenses for 7 days, followed by +10D lenses for 7 days. 6 chicks wore conventional -10D lenses for 7 days, followed by MPC lenses for 7 days. MPC lenses had a central power of -10D and a gradient power rise at pupil edge (+2.75D). Chicks were euthanized after 14 days and eyes were processed for histopathological evaluation. Whole mount H&E-stained tissue sections were analyzed using bright field microscopy. RESULTS: > 0.05). CONCLUSION: It is possible to induce appositional growth in hyaline cartilage in the chick sclera. In our study, this has only been achieved by using MPC lenses to reverse previously induced experimental myopia with conventional minus lenses. Our findings suggest that a gradient decrease in peripheral lens power and the resulting differential defocus could trigger of scleral reinforcement through of cartilage growth stimulation in the chick sclera.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".