MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072369408 · doi:10.1002/cne.20097

Brain mapping of three somatostatin encoding genes in the goldfish

2004· article· en· W2072369408 on OpenAlexafffund
Luis Fabián Canosa, José Miguel Cerdá‐Reverter, Richard Peter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Comparative Neurology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologySomatostatinIn situ hybridizationSensory systemGeneSomatostatin receptor 3HypothalamusNeuroscienceEndocrinologyMessenger RNASomatostatin receptor 2GeneticsSomatostatin receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study the brain distribution of three somatostatin (SRIF)-encoding genes, PSS-I, PSS-II, and PSS-III, was analyzed by in situ hybridization (ISH) in the goldfish. The PSS-I mRNA showed the widest distribution throughout the brain, whereas PSS-II transcripts were restricted to some hypothalamic nuclei. On the other hand, PSS-III presents an intermediate distribution pattern. All SRIF encoding genes are expressed in hypophysiotropic nuclei supporting the idea that, in addition to SRIF-14, [Pro(2)] SRIF-14, and gSRIF-28 have pituitary-controlling functions. Moreover, each of the genes is expressed in nuclei directly associated with feeding behavior, suggesting a role for SRIF peptides in the central control of food intake and energy balance. Alternatively, they might have a role in processing sensory information related with feeding behavior, since PSS genes are expressed in the main gustatory, olfactory, and visual centers, which project to the hypothalamic feeding center in teleost fish.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations32
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Comparative NeurologySame topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207