MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034372601 · doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000000352

The Role of Skeletal Muscle in External Ear Development

2015· article· en· W2034372601 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Hong, Irena Rot, Boris Kablar

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMYF5MyoDSkeletal muscleAnatomyAuricleBiologyInner earMyotomeEmbryoEmbryogenesisCell biologyMyogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mechanical stimuli imparted by skeletal muscles play an important role during embryonic development in vertebrates. Little is known whether skeletal muscles are required for normal external ear development. METHODS: We used Myf5-/-:MyoD-/- (double-mutant) mouse embryos that completely lack skeletal musculature and analyzed the development of the external ear. We concentrated on the external ear because several studies have suggested a muscular cause to various congenital auricular deformities, and middle and inner ear development was previously reported using the same mouse model. Wild-type mouse embryos were used as controls to compare the histomorphometric outcomes. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrated an absence of the external auditory meatus, along with an abnormal auricular appearance, in the double-mutant mouse embryos. Specifically, the auricle did not protrude laterally as noted in the wild-type mouse ears. However, histomorphometric measurements were not significantly different between the wild-type and double-mutant mouse ears. CONCLUSION: Overall, our study showed that the development of the mouse external ear is dependent on the presence of skeletal muscles.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global OpenSame topicReconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207