A comparative analysis of chick culturing methods on skeletogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chick embryos are desirable models for the study of developmental biology. Despite this, there are very few studies that examine the effect of different culturing methods on skeletogenesis, specifically, intramembranous and endochondral bones. This study presents a detailed description of these effects by comparing two different culturing methods: windowed (in the shell) eggs and ex-ovo or shell-less culturing to normal development. Using whole mount bone staining, we determined that there is no significant difference in the length of the ossified region of intramembranous and endochondral bones in control versus window cultured embryos. However, these bones are significantly underossified in shell-less embryos. Shell-less embryos also exhibit abnormalities in endochondral bones. Intramembranous bones, interestingly, are morphologically normal in shell-less embryos. This study provides the first detailed description of ossification in window (in-ovo) and shell-less (ex-ovo) cultured embryos compared with controls (in-ovo). Patterning of the skeleton is unaffected regardless of culturing method. We conclude that studies involving endochondral bones should not utilise shell-less culturing methods. This data has been lacking in the literature and will serve as an important resource for those using cultured chick embryos in the study of skeletogenesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".