MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035127972 · doi:10.1530/rep.1.00444

Embryonic diapause and its regulation

2004· review· en· W2035127972 on OpenAlexafffund
Flávia L. Lopes, Joëlle A. Desmarais, Bruce D. Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDiapauseBiologyObligateFacultativeBlastocystEmbryoEmbryonic stem cellCell biologyEmbryogenesisContext (archaeology)GeneticsGeneEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Embryonic diapause, a condition of temporary suspension of development of the mammalian embryo, occurs due to suppression of cell proliferation at the blastocyst stage. It is an evolutionary strategy to ensure the survival of neonates. Obligate diapause occurs in every gestation of some species, while facultative diapause ensues in others, associated with metabolic stress, usually lactation. The onset, maintenance and escape from diapause are regulated by cascades of environmental, hypophyseal, ovarian and uterine mechanisms that vary among species and between the obligate and facultative condition. In the best-known models, the rodents, the uterine environment maintains the embryo in diapause, while estrogens, in combination with growth factors, reinitiate development. Mitotic arrest in the mammalian embryo occurs at the G0 or G1 phase of the cell cycle, and may be due to expression of a specific cell cycle inhibitor. Regulation of proliferation in non- mammalian models of diapause provide clues to orthologous genes whose expression may regulate the reprise of proliferation in the mammalian context.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations219
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductionSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207