MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095395149 · doi:10.1002/ajpa.10149

Localized hypoplasia of the primary canine in bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons

2002· article· en· W2095395149 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Skinner, Elizabeth A. Newell

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPan paniscusPongo pygmaeusHylobatesHominidaeEnamel hypoplasiaPongidaeZoologyBiologyAnatomyEnamel paintDentistryMedicineEcologyGeneticsBiological evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper extends observations by Lukacs ([1999] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 110:351-363; [2001] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 116:199-208) of localized hypoplasia of the primary canine (LHPC) among large apes to gibbons, bonobos, and orangutans. LHPC is a roughly circular area of deficient enamel on the labial surface of primary canine teeth which, on current evidence from humans, forms several months after birth due to malnutrition-induced craniofacial osteopenia, leading to crypt fenestration that exposes the dental follicle and more deep-sited ameloblasts to minor physical traumata during normal motor infant development. Our goal was to determine the prevalence of LHPC among a variety of apes which differ in body mass and socioecology, with a view to elucidating the etiology of the defect. We examined juvenile dentitions from 122 animals from three taxa: 8 Hylobates lar, 75 Pongo pygmaeus from Borneo and Sumatra, and 39 Pan paniscus from central Africa. Reported variables include taxon, sex, arcade, side, and tooth size. Presence/absence and ordinal severity of defect expression were recorded by description, microphotography, and scanning electron microscopy. Molds were taken in high-resolution dental impression materials and cast in epoxy resin. There are clear taxonomic, but no sex, differences. Prevalence ranged from 0.0% in gibbons to 61.5% in bonobos and 85.3% in orangutans. The result for orangutans is similar to that reported by Lukacs ([1999] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 110:351-363), while bonobos are much more affected than were the common chimpanzees (22%) described by Lukacs ([1999] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 110:351-363). There are no significant antimeric differences, but the lower canine is much more affected than the upper by LHPC. We show that larger teeth are more affected by LHPC and have more severe defects. Also, we encountered several instances of patent or healing canine crypt fenestrations, occasionally in direct association with LHPC. Location of the defect indicates that LHPC may occur perinatally but more usually several months postnatally. Histological examination showing the neonatal line and LHPC is required to resolve the issue of timing. We concur with Lukacs ([1999] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 110:351-363) that taxonomic, anatomical, and environmental variables combine to determine the occurrence and appearance of LHPC. Nevertheless, we conclude that LHPC probably reflects deficient growth of the arcades in infant apes and humans.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations34
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical AnthropologySame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207