Development of scoliosis following pinealectomy in young chickens is not the result of an artifact of the surgical procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pinealectomy in young chickens consistently results in scoliosis, which has many characteristics similar to those seen in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The mechanism underlying this phenomenon remains a mystery and it is not yet entirely clear whether some unidentified aspect of the extensive surgery is the major factor rather than the removal of the pineal gland. Four different types of pinealectomy surgery were performed on young chickens as well as deliberate damage to the cerebral cortex which simulated the extreme of any accidental damage that might occur during surgery. Scoliosis was assessed from weekly radiographs. No differences in incidence of scoliosis, degree of severity, or pattern of curve development were observed for any of the experimental groups when compared with controls. In all groups approximately 55% of the chickens developed scoliosis that progressed rapidly. Different pinealectomy procedures and deliberate damage to the cerebral cortex produce scoliosis in young chickens with the same incidence and characteristics. This suggests strongly that the mechanism behind the phenomenon is due to the removal of the pineal gland and not some artifact of the extensive surgery. The pinealectomy model in young chickens is proving to be a good model for studying AIS in humans. An understanding of the mechanism underlying this phenomenon has the potential to provide further insights into the etiology of AIS and can lead to the development of novel treatment methods.
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".