Permanent tooth mineralization in bonobos (<i>Pan paniscus</i>) and chimpanzees (<i>P. troglodytes</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The timing of tooth mineralization in bonobos (Pan paniscus) is virtually uncharacterized. Analysis of these developmental features in bonobos and the possible differences with its sister species, the chimpanzee (P. troglodytes), is important to properly quantify the normal ranges of dental growth variation in closely related primate species. Understanding this variation among bonobo, chimpanzee and modern human dental development is necessary to better contextualize the life histories of extinct hominins. This study tests whether bonobos and chimpanzees are distinguished from each other by covariance among the relative timing and sequences of tooth crown initiation, mineralization, root extension, and completion. Using multivariate statistical analyses, we compared the relative timing of permanent tooth crypt formation, crown mineralization, and root extension between 34 P. paniscus and 80 P. troglodytes mandibles radiographed in lateral and occlusal views. Covariance among our 12 assigned dental scores failed to statistically distinguish between bonobos and chimpanzees. Rather than clustering by species, individuals clustered by age group (infant, younger or older juvenile, and adult). Dental scores covaried similarly between the incisors, as well as between both premolars. Conversely, covariance among dental scores distinguished the canine and each of the three molars not only from each other, but also from the rest of the anterior teeth. Our study showed no significant differences in the relative timing of permanent tooth crown and root formation between bonobos and chimpanzees.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".