MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080397589 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0500612102

Uterine Wnt/β-catenin signaling is required for implantation

2005· article· en· W2080397589 on OpenAlexaff
Othman A. Mohamed, Maud Jonnaert, Cassandre Labelle‐Dumais, Kazuki Kuroda, Hugh J. Clarke, Daniel Dufort

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive System and Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill UniversityOttawa HospitalRoyal Victoria Regional Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWnt signaling pathwayBeta-cateninUterusSignal transductionCell biologyBlastocystCateninEmbryoBiologyPhosphorylationLRP6EmbryogenesisEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful implantation relies on precisely orchestrated and reciprocal signaling between the implanting blastocyst and the receptive uterus. We have examined the role of the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway during the process of implantation and demonstrate that this pathway is activated during two distinct stages. Wnt/beta-catenin signaling is first transiently activated in circular smooth muscle forming a banding pattern of activity within the uterus on early day 4. Subsequently, activation is restricted to the luminal epithelium at the prospective site of implantation. Activation at both sites requires the presence of the blastocyst. Furthermore, inhibition of Wnt/beta-catenin signaling interferes with the process of implantation. Our results demonstrate that the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway plays a central role in coordinating uterus-embryo interactions required for implantation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations223
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicReproductive System and PregnancyFrench-language works237,207