MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014674918 · doi:10.1002/bies.10120

Identification of the mouse <i>Loop‐tail</i> gene: a model for human craniorachischisis?

2002· article· en· W2014674918 on OpenAlexaff
Carolyn Kapron

Bibliographic record

VenueBioEssays · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicKruppel-like factors research
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeural tubeGeneClosure (psychology)BiologyNeural tube defectIdentification (biology)GeneticsFunction (biology)Neural systemMutationLoop (graph theory)Computational biologyNeuroscienceEmbryo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neural tube defects are one of the commonest human birth defects, with more than 0.5% of some populations affected. Mouse models are being used in an attempt to identify genes that could be involved in these malformations. Only two mouse mutations are known to lead to craniorachischisis, failure of closure of almost the entire neural tube. Two recent papers report that the gene for one of these, Loop-tail, has now been identified and sequenced.1, 2 It has been given the designation Ltap/Lpp1 and appears to function in floor plate formation. It will be of great interest to investigate the role of this gene in human neural tube defects.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioEssaysSame topicKruppel-like factors researchFrench-language works237,207