MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1492876890 · doi:10.1002/dvg.22774

Are there conserved roles for the extracellular matrix, cilia, and junctional complexes in left‐right patterning?

2014· review· en· W1492876890 on OpenAlexafffund
Michelle M. Collins, Aimee K. Ryan

Bibliographic record

Venuegenesis · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCiliumExtracellular matrixCell biologyMorphogenesisBiologyTranscription factorGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many different types of molecules have essential roles in patterning the left-right axis and directing asymmetric morphogenesis. In particular, the relationship between signaling molecules and transcription factors has been explored extensively. Another group of proteins implicated in left-right patterning are components of the extracellular matrix, apical junctions, and cilia. These structural molecules have the potential to participate in the conversion of morphogenetic cues from the extracellular environment into morphogenetic patterning via their interactions with the actin cytoskeleton. Although it has been relatively easy to temporally position these proteins within the hierarchy of the left-right patterning pathway, it has been more difficult to define how they mechanistically fit into these pathways. Consequently, our understanding of how these factors impart patterning information to influence the establishment of the left-right axis remains limited. In this review, we will discuss those structural molecules that have been implicated in early phases of left-right axis development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuegenesisSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207