Avascularity in the cortical bone of small bats as revealed by micro computed tomography (920.3)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spatial distribution of vascular canals in cortical bone reflects the mechanical loading conditions present during the formation of the bone. In the flight bones of birds, these canals have a laminar pattern, oriented circumferentially around the medullary cavity. Evidence for this pattern and its relation to torsional loading has thus far come from histological studies, however vascular canals exist in 3D and their cross sections in a 2D slice may vary from their actual 3D morphology. We hypothesized that bats would show the same laminar pattern in their flight bones and that high resolution 3D imaging would better reveal the extent of the cortical network. We used micro‐computed tomography (micro‐CT) to examine the cortical network of two species of bats (Eptesicus fuscus pallidus, Lasiurus cinereus), two species of birds (Tyrannus verticalis, Seiurus aurocapillus), and two species of terrestrial mammals (Mus musculus, Eutamias minimus), all of similar size. Contrary to our expectations we found that the bats had cortices devoid of vascular canals. Compared to the terrestrial mammals, we found that the birds had a reduction in the number of cortical vascular canals present and did not exhibit the anticipated laminar pattern found previously in larger bird species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".