Insight into vitreous biomechanics and clinical implications: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structured Abstract Purpose This systematic review investigates the current landscape of rheometric techniques used to study the viscosity and viscoelastic properties of vitreous humor to better understand vitreous behavior for clinical applications, particularly in anomalous posterior vitreous detachment (PVD). Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus using the keywords “vitreous body,” “viscosity,” and “rheology.” The review followed PRISMA guidelines, including studies assessing vitreous viscosity in human or animal eyes with experimental methods. Non- peer-reviewed and non-English studies were excluded. The quality of the 42 studies selected was assessed using the SYRCLE and adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tools. Rheometric devices, experimental models, and outcomes were analyzed. Results The 42 studies analyzed 1,125 experimental eyes, including porcine (33.3%), bovine (25%), and human (15%) eyes. Various devices were used for experimentation with capillary tubes (20%) and rotational devices (15%) being most common. Mechanical properties such as G’ and G’’ were reported in 10 and 8 studies, respectively. Steady-state viscosity (ηss) was reported in 15 studies, values ranging from 1.43 × 10 5 ± 2.19 × 10 4 Pa·s to 12.3 ± 0.94 Pa·s across studies. Conclusions This systematic review highlights variability in rheometric methods with species, techniques, and outcomes to assess vitreous humor. Standardized methods are necessary to assess vitreous properties and for clinical application.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".