Developmental mechanisms underlying tooth patterning in continuously replacing osteichthyan dentitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dentition of osteichthyans presents an astonishing diversity with regard to the distribution of teeth in the oral cavity, tooth numbers, arrangements, shapes, and sizes. Taking examples from three unrelated teleosts--the most speciose group of osteichthyans--and from the literature, this study explores how the initial tooth pattern is set up, and how this relates to the establishment and maintenance (or modification) of the tooth replacement pattern. In teleosts, first-generation teeth (the very first teeth in ontogeny to develop at a particular locus) are commonly initiated in adjacent or in alternate (odd and even) positions. The mechanisms responsible for these divergent developmental patterns remain to be elucidated, in particular, whether they reflect a field or local type of control. However, patterns of adjacent or alternate tooth initiation, set up by the first-generation teeth, can easily turn into replacement patterns where new teeth are initiated simultaneously every second, or even every third position, by synchronizing the formation of new first-generation teeth to the formation of replacement teeth at older loci. Our observations suggest that, once established, the replacement pattern appears to be maintained, as a kind of "default" state. Variations and modifications in this pattern are nevertheless common and suggest that tooth replacement is under local control, exerted at the level of the initiation of replacement teeth. Further studies are needed to test the hypothesis that regular replacement patterns are more frequent in association with the plesiomorphic condition of extramedullary replacement (replacement on the surface of the dentigerous bone) and more rare in the derived condition of intramedullary replacement (replacement within the medullary cavity of the dentigerous bone).
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".