MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011283915 · doi:10.1210/endo.142.11.8509

PTH Regulates Fetal Blood Calcium and Skeletal Mineralization Independently of PTHrP

2001· article· en· W2011283915 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher S. Kovács, L. Chafe, Neva J. Fudge, James K. Friel, Nancy R. Manley

Bibliographic record

VenueEndocrinology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineEndocrinologyCalciumParathyroid hormoneFetusChemistryCalcium metabolismBiologyMedicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PTH and PTHrP both act in the regulation of fetal mineral metabolism. PTHrP regulates placental calcium transfer, fetal blood calcium, and differentiation of the cartilaginous growth plate into endochondral bone. PTH has been shown to influence fetal blood calcium, but its role in skeletal formation remains undefined. We compared skeletal morphology, mineralization characteristics, and gene expression in growth plates of fetal mice that lack parathyroids and PTH (Hoxa3 null) with the effects of loss of PTHrP (Pthrp null), loss of PTH/PTHrP receptor (Pthr1 null), and loss of both PTH and PTHrP (Hoxa3 null x Pthrp null). Loss of PTH alone does not affect morphology or gene expression in the skeletal growth plates, but skeletal mineralization and blood calcium are significantly reduced. In double-mutant fetuses (Hoxa3 null/Pthrp null), combined loss of PTH and PTHrP caused fetal growth restriction, limb shortening, greater reduction of fetal blood calcium, and reduced mineralization. These findings suggest that 1) PTH may play a more dominant role than PTHrP in regulating fetal blood calcium; 2) blood calcium and PTH levels are rate-limiting determinants of skeletal mineral accretion; and 3) lack of both PTH and PTHrP will cause fetal growth restriction.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations99
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndocrinologySame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207