Pineal Transplantation After Pinealectomy in Young Chickens Has No Effect on the Development of Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Three experimental groups and one control group of chickens underwent different surgical procedures to determine the effects of pineal gland transplantation on the development of scoliosis. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether transplantation of the pineal gland to the body wall musculature maintains serum melatonin levels at normal values and prevents the development of scoliosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Scoliosis occurs consistently after pinealectomy in young chickens. Many characteristics of this scoliosis are similar to those seen in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. It is not clear whether the underlying mechanism is dependent on reduced levels of serum melatonin or some other aspect of the extensive surgery. METHODS: Four groups of chickens were selected: normal chickens, pinealectomized chickens, chickens that underwent simple cutting of the pineal stalk, and chickens that underwent transplantation of the pineal gland into the body wall. Development of scoliosis was determined from measurement of the Cobb angle from weekly radiographs. RESULTS: All of the experimental groups showed the same levels of incidence and the same patterns of scoliosis development. Serum melatonin levels were reduced to nearly zero in all the experimental groups for the duration of the experiment. Scoliosis developed in none of the normal chickens. CONCLUSIONS: Neither transplantation of the pineal gland into the body wall musculature nor simple cutting of the pineal stalk was able to maintain normal levels of serum melatonin because both procedures reduced levels to nearly zero. The incidence and pattern of scoliosis development in these groups were the same as those for the pinealectomized group. Reduction of serum melatonin levels remains a prerequisite for scoliosis development in young chickens.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".