MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006030979 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e32832a2c63

Developmental expression of thyroid hormone receptor β2 protein in cone photoreceptors in the mouse

2009· article· en· W2006030979 on OpenAlexaff
Lily Ng, Michelle Ma, Tom Curran, Douglas Forrest

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPhotopigmentBiologyOpsinImmunostainingEndocrinologyInternal medicinePopulationThyroidOuter nuclear layerReceptorAnatomyCell biologyImmunohistochemistryRetinaNeuroscienceImmunologyMedicineGeneticsRetinal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thyroid hormone receptor beta2 (TRbeta2) controls the patterning of cone opsin photopigments that mediate colour vision. We raised an antiserum against TRbeta2 to study cone photoreceptor development by western blot and immunostaining analyses. TRbeta2-positive cells first appeared between embryonic day 10 (E10) and E12. Numbers increased until near birth, correlating with generation of the cone population. At birth, signals decreased until postnatal day 10, then declined to very low levels in adulthood. TRbeta2-positive cells were initially dispersed but became aligned at the edge of the outer neuroblastic layer by E15. Postnatally, these cells migrated inwardly until postnatal day 10, then outwardly to the edge of the outer nuclear layer, the location of mature cones. TRbeta2 represents a functionally unique marker for cone 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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations67
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207