MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chorioallantoic Morphogenesis and Formation of the Placental Villous Tree

2003· review· en· W1969772038 on OpenAlexaff
James C. Cross, David G. Simmons, Erica D. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCell biologyMorphogenesisMesodermChorioallantoic membranePlacentaEmbryogenesisAnatomyEmbryoEmbryonic stem cellFetusGeneticsGenePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The placenta is a highly specialized organ whose primary function is to promote the exchange of nutrients and oxygen between maternal and fetal blood, essential for survival and growth of the baby. The surface area for nutrient transport is a highly convoluted villous structure that forms by branching morphogenesis. In mice, this process begins after embryonic day 8.5, following attachment of allantoic mesoderm to the chorion, and continues through the end of gestation. Gene targeting studies in mice have identified a large number of genes that are essential for chorioallantoic development to give rise to the layer of the placenta called the labyrinth. Collectively, these studies reveal that a number of signaling pathways regulate four distinct phases of labyrinth development: chorioallantoic attachment (involving VCAM1 and its receptor alpha4 integrin, Bmp5/7, and Wnt7b, as well as the cochaperone Mrj), initiation of branching (involving the Gcm1 transcription factor to select sites of branch initiation), extension of villous branching (involving FGF, EGF, and HGF/Met signaling, through the Grb2/Sos1/Mek1/p38alpha MAPK pathway), followed by vascularization of the villous tree. The restricted expression and/or action of the signaling components indicate that a series of intercellular interactions regulate chorioallantoic 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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations123
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207