Morphogenesis of Palatal Ridges in the Golden Hamster (Mesocricetus auratus, Rodentia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rugae palatinae (RP) -transversal mucosal ridges of the mammalian palate -are assumed to play a role during closure of the palate in embryos.The aim of this study was to assess the morphogenesis of palatal ridges in the golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus, Rodentia) by light and scanning electron microscopy.Cell proliferation was detected by immunohistochemical staining of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA).In the hamster, three to four antemolar and three intermolar ridges were formed.In ED 11.0 (ED -embryonic day) embryos, RP1 and RP3 were at the epithelial thickening stage, RP2 was a primitive ruga in the rostral part of the palatal processes.In the caudal part of the palate, an epithelial placode represented the prospective RP4-RP7.At ED 12.5, the closed secondary palate bore six ridge primordia.Only RP2 protruded distinctly into the oral cavity.At ED 13.0-14.5 and ED15.0-15.5, the mesenchymal core of the antemolar and intermolar ridge primordia, respectively, started to develop.Strikingly, a local increase of proliferation activity does not seem to be the main process involved in palatal ridge formation and elevation.Although the palatal ridge formation and elevation is based on tissue volume enlargement, strikingly, the proliferation activity was higher in the interrugal epithelium than in the ridge primordia.Rather than the epithelial proliferation activity increase, the change in orientation of mitotic spindles of dividing cells seems to be a reason of palatal ridge formation. Oral cavity, proliferation, embryo, foetus, development
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) | 0.000 | 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".