MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983786191 · doi:10.4161/fly.23969

Subtype-specific neuronal remodeling during<i>Drosophila</i>metamorphosis

2013· article· en· W1983786191 on OpenAlexaff
Lyubov Veverytsa, Douglas W. Allan

Bibliographic record

VenueFly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetamorphosisBiologyNeurogenesisDrosophila melanogasterNeuroscienceNervous systemEmbryonic stem cellNeuroplasticityCell biologyLarvaGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During metamorphosis in holometabolous insects, the nervous system undergoes dramatic remodeling as it transitions from its larval to its adult form. Many neurons are generated through post-embryonic neurogenesis to have adult-specific roles, but perhaps more striking is the dramatic remodeling that occurs to transition neurons from functioning in the larval to the adult nervous system. These neurons exhibit a remarkable degree of plasticity during this transition; many subsets undergo programmed cell death, others remodel their axonal and dendritic arbors extensively, whereas others undergo trans-differentiation to alter their terminal differentiation gene expression profiles. Yet other neurons appear to be developmentally frozen in an immature state throughout larval life, to be awakened at metamorphosis by a process we term temporally-tuned differentiation. These multiple forms of remodeling arise from subtype-specific responses to a single metamorphic trigger, ecdysone. Here, we discuss recent progress in Drosophila melanogaster that is shedding light on how subtype-specific programs of neuronal remodeling are generated during metamorphosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207