Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental patterns in vertebrates range from absence of teeth to multiple sets of teeth that are replaced throughout life. Despite this great variation, most of our understanding of tooth development is derived from studies on just a few model organisms. Here we introduce the reptile as an excellent model in which to study the molecular basis for early dental specification and, most importantly, for tooth replacement. We review recent snake studies that highlight the conserved role of Shh in marking the position of the odontogenic band. The distinctive molecular patterning of the dental lamina in the labial-lingual and oral-aboral axes is reviewed. We explain how these early signals help to specify the tooth-forming and non-tooth forming sides of the dental lamina as well as the presumptive successional lamina. Next, the simple architecture of the reptilian enamel organ is contrasted with the more complex, mammalian tooth bud and we discuss whether or not there is an enamel knot in reptilian teeth. The role of the successional lamina during tooth replacement in squamate reptiles is reviewed and we speculate on the possible formation of a vestigial, post-permanent dentition in mammals. In support of these ideas, we present data on agamid teeth in which development of a third generation is arrested. We suggest that in diphyodont mammals, similar mechanisms may be involved in reducing tooth replacement capacity. Finally, we review the location of label-retaining cells and suggest ways in which these putative dental epithelial stem cells contribute to continuous tooth replacement.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".