Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past years, several studies have unraveled important mechanisms by which the four myogenic regulatory factors (MRFs: MyoD, Myf-5, myogenin, and MRF4) control the specification and the differentiation of the muscle lineage. Early experiments led to the hypothesis that these factors were redundant and could functionally replace one another. However, recent experiments using in vivo and in vitro models have demonstrated that in fact different aspects of the myogenic program are controlled by different factors in vivo, suggesting that these factors play distinct roles during myogenesis. The activity of the MRFs during proliferation and differentiation of muscle precursor cells has clearly been demonstrated to be dependent on specific cell-cycle control mechanisms as well as distinct interactions with other regulatory molecules, such as the ubiquitously expressed E proteins and several other transcription factors. Furthermore, the observation that the MRFs can recruit chromatin remodeling proteins has shed some light on the mechanisms by which the MRFs activate gene expression. Recently, a functional role for MyoD during satellite cell activation and muscle repair has been identified in vivo, which cannot be substituted for by the other MRFs. This has put forward the hypothesis that these factors also play specific biological roles following muscle injury and repair.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".