Structural organization of the midgut musculature in black flies (<i>Simulium</i>spp.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structural organization of the midgut musculature of females of the ornithophilic species Simulium rugglesi and the mammalophilic species Simulium venustum were examined by confocal microscopy. In addition, the association between the longitudinal and circular muscles of fed S. rugglesi was investigated by transmission electron microscopy. Longitudinal and circular muscles in both species are arranged orthogonally, forming a gridlike pattern. In S. rugglesi the estimated number of longitudinal and circular muscles was 181 and 90, respectively, whereas in S. venustum there were approximately 156 longitudinal and 69 circular muscles. Longitudinal muscles are arranged in unevenly spaced sets of parallel bundles. Branching of longitudinal muscles occurs randomly along the length of the midgut in S. rugglesi and anteriorly and posteriorly to the most expanded region of the posterior midgut in S. venustum. Circular muscles exhibit less variation in bundle spacing and a more organized branching pattern. Each circular muscle bundle shares fibers with the neighboring bundles, interconnecting them along the length of the midgut. Ultrastructural observations on the midgut of S. rugglesi showed connections between longitudinal and circular muscles. A comparison of the findings from this study with those from studies on mosquitoes revealed similarities in the arrangement and structure of the midgut musculature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".