Regulation of Dental Enamel Shape and Hardness
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epithelial-mesenchymal interactions guide tooth development through its early stages and establish the morphology of the dentin surface upon which enamel will be deposited. Starting with the onset of amelogenesis beneath the future cusp tips, the shape of the enamel layer covering the crown is determined by five growth parameters: the (1) appositional growth rate, (2) duration of appositional growth (at the cusp tip), (3) ameloblast extension rate, (4) duration of ameloblast extension, and (5) spreading rate of appositional termination. Appositional growth occurs at a mineralization front along the ameloblast distal membrane in which amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP) ribbons form and lengthen. The ACP ribbons convert into hydroxyapatite crystallites as the ribbons elongate. Appositional growth involves a secretory cycle that is reflected in a series of incremental lines. A potentially important function of enamel proteins is to ensure alignment of successive mineral increments on the tips of enamel ribbons deposited in the previous cycle, causing the crystallites to lengthen with each cycle. Enamel hardens in a maturation process that involves mineral deposition onto the sides of existing crystallites until they interlock with adjacent crystallites. Neutralization of acidity generated by hydroxyapatite formation is a key part of the mechanism. Here we review the growth parameters that determine the shape of the enamel crown as well as the mechanisms of enamel appositional growth and maturation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it