MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996190319

Retinal pigment epithelial fine structure in the bobtail \ngoanna (Tiliqua rugosa)

2011· article· en· W6996190319 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitum: Institutional Repository of the University of Murcia (University of Murcia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMedical Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEndoplasmic reticulumRetinaRetinal pigment epitheliumBasal laminaUltrastructureCuboidal CellRetinalElectron microscope
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The retinal pigment'epithelium (RPE), the \nchoriocapillaris and Bruch's membrane (complexus \nbasalis) have been studied by light and electron \nmicroscopy in the bobtail goanna (Tiliqua rugosa) an \nAustralian diurna1 lizard. The RPE consists of a single \nlayer of cuboidal cells which display very deep and \ntortuous basal (choroidal) infoldings as well as numerous \napical (vitreal) processes which interdigitate with the \nphotoreceptor cells. The lateral cell borders are \nrelatively smooth and joined by basally located tight \njunctions. Internally smooth endoplasmic reticulum is \nabundant while rough endoplasmic reticulum is not. The \nRPE cell nucleus is large and vesicular and basally \nlocated in the light-adapted state. Polysomes, \nmitochondria and myeloid bodies are present and widely \ndistributed. Melanosomes are plentiful in the apical \nregion of the epithelial cells in light-adaptation. Bruch's \nmembrane is pentalaminate with the basal lamina of \nthe choriocapillaris being exceptionally thick. The \nchoriocapillaris is a single layer of large-caliber \ncapillaries with thin but only moderately fenestrated \nendothelium. Numerous dense granules are always \npresent within these endothelial cells.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigitum: Institutional Repository of the University of Murcia (University of Murcia)Same topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207