MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973853894 · doi:10.1387/ijdb.052077sc

Effects of microgravity on cell cytoskeleton and embryogenesis

2006· review· en· W1973853894 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Developmental Biology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyWeightlessnessCell biologyCytoskeletonEmbryogenesisEmbryoMicrotubuleEmbryonic stem cellCellGeneticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this review is to compile, summarize and discuss the effects of microgravity on embryos, cell structure and function that have been demonstrated from data obtained during experiments performed in space or in altered gravity induced by clinostats. In cells and tissues cellular structure and genetic expression may be changed in microgravity and this has a variety of effects on embryogenesis which include death of the embryo, failure of neural tube closure, or final deformities to the overall morphology of the newborn or hatchling. Many species and protocols have been used for microgravity space experiments making it difficult to compare results. Experiments on the ways in which embryonic development and cell interactions occur in microgravity could also be performed. Experiments that have been done with cells in microgravity show changes in morphology, cytoskeleton and function. Changes in cytoskeleton have been noted and studies on microtubules in gravity have shown that they are gravity sensitive. Further study of basic chemical reactions that occur in cells should be done to shed some light on the underling processes leading to the changes that are observed in cells and embryos in microgravity.

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.

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 score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.305 · 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