MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126202640 · doi:10.1152/jappl.2000.89.6.2123

Structure of the primordial diaphragm and defects associated with nitrofen-induced CDH

2000· article· en· W2126202640 on OpenAlexaff
John J. Greer, David J. Coté, Douglas W. Allan, Wei Zhang, Randal P. Babiuk, Linh Ly, Robert P. Lemke, K. M. Bagnall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNitrofenCongenital diaphragmatic herniaDiaphragm (acoustics)AnatomyDiaphragmatic breathingDiaphragmatic herniaPathogenesisMedicineBiologyHerniaFetusPathologySurgeryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goals of this study were to further our understanding of diaphragm embryogenesis and the pathogenesis of congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). Past work suggests that the pleuroperitoneal fold (PPF) is the primary source of diaphragmatic musculature. Furthermore, defects associated with an animal model of CDH can be traced back to the formation of the PPF. This study was designed to elucidate the anatomic structure of the PPF and to determine which regions of the PPF malform in the well-established nitrofen model of CDH. This was achieved by producing three-dimensional renderings constructed from serial transverse sections of control and nitrofen-exposed rats at embryonic day 13.5. Renderings of left- and right-sided defects demonstrated that the malformations were always limited to the dorsolateral portions of the caudal regions of the PPF. These data provide an explanation of why the holes in diaphragmatic musculature associated with CDH are characteristically located in dorsolateral regions. Moreover, these data provide further evidence against the widely stated hypothesis that a failure of pleuroperitoneal canal closure underlies the pathogenesis of nitrofen-induced CDH.

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)0.000
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 score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations55
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudiesFrench-language works237,207